The View From the Sinister Side of Life

How To Think Like an AGW-Denier

So I was having a mini-debate with Say Uncle about global warming (in response to this excellent Krugman piece on the topic), and Uncle made an argument that I frankly thought was idiotic. First, though, some background. In response to the piece, Uncly Wuncly complained that Krugman had engaged in “quasi-reasoned yammering about how a majority = right” (I had called his initial snark “quasi-clever”). I responded:

[T]here’s a pretty big difference between a majority of people and an overwhelming majority of qualified experts who have actually studied the subject matter in question. Is it possible that they’re wrong, and the minority is right? Sure it is. But it’s not bloody likely, and it’s certainly not a good reason to try to discredit the people who say “maybe we ought to listen to them.”

To which he responded, “see appeal to authority, logical fallacy.”

So according to him, there’s no significant difference between “X must be true because Dr. Foo [one guy] of the X Institute says so,” and, “Y is almost certainly true because the overwhelming majority of credible experts who have studied the subject have come to that conclusion.” Now, as I said above, it’s still possible that the overwhelming majority of credible experts is wrong. But an argument from authority, it ain’t.

But I was having a hard time figuring out explaining just WHY his stance struck me as so preposterous. And I think I have an example to illustrate why.

Suppose you’re a smoker. Now suppose you’re having respiratory and cardiac problems, and your doctor tells you that smoking is exacerbating and probably causing your problems, and you need to quit smoking. Now, you love smoking, so of course you seek out a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And so on, until you’ve seen twenty doctors about the problem. Of the twenty, nineteen agree that smoking is Very, Very Bad for your particular symptoms, and that you need to quit. The twentieth says smoking is fine, no need to change anything. Now suppose further that the nineteen who agree are all cardiologists and pulmonologists, with perhaps one or two general practitioners thrown in. The guy who says the other nineteen are wrong, that smoking is no problem is a dermatologist. And to boot, the dermatologist works for R.J. Reynolds.

Given this scenario, what do you do? Do you quit smoking, and go with the clear majority of expert opinion? Or do you continue smoking, insist that the dermatologist must be right, and that there’s no reason to believe that the nineteen cardiologists and pulmonologists are right, and that anyone who trusts the opinion to the nineteen is making a fallacious appeal to authority?

If you’re a member of that second group, congratulations! You’re SayUncle!

NOTE: The primary flaw in my analogy, when comparing it to anthropogenic global warming science, is that the ratio in AGW science is tilted a lot more heavily than 19 to 1. By allowing 5% dissent, I’ve actually grossly exaggerated how much is really out there in the case of AGW. [See below for correction.]

Footnote to the Preceding Note: In our mini-debate, Uncle also claimed that “the ‘overwhelming majority’ tends to refer to scientists who are not climatologists.” Unless I misunderstand his complaint, he’s got this exactly backward. See, for example this January 2009 survey of Earth Scientists, which found that:

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

For reference, the two questions they asked:

When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Bottom line: the more one actively studies the Earth’s climate and client science, the more likely one is to conclude that human activity is a significant contributing factor. Contrary to Uncly-Wuncly‘s claim, climatologists are substantially more likely that scientists at large to make that conclusion. Though I will note that 1 out of 20 was actually less exaggerated than I would have thought.

UPDATE 2009-12-09 21:44 CST: “Climategate” is, of course, getting a lot of press here. Here’s New Scientist’s take on the matter. The NRDC also weighs in. And, of course, RealClimate offers one-stop shopping. As does SwiftHack (presumably, the name alludes to the anti-Kerry hit group Swift Boat Veterans for Misrepresenting the Truth).

134 Responses

Have you taken all your money out of the banks because a few bankers behaved badly last year? (And note that a much higher percentage of them engaged in much more egregious transgressions.)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

On Fr*d’s point, note that not only do you side with the dermatologist, you also quote mine pulmonologists saying things like “Our models of blood chemistry don’t show any reason nicotine should cause lung cancer.”, which they then follow up with “But smoking introduces a lot more than nicotine into the lungs, and we have plenty of direct research showing that smoking does cause lung cancer.”

The primary flaw with your smoking analogy is that the guy who gets fucked by smoking is, well, the smoker himself. The primary guy to get fucked by users of fossil fuels is not the users of them, but the folks who can’t afford to move to higher land, build dikes, or pay for the price of grain and produce as droughts become more common.

That’s really the whole problem with AGW. Sure, tobacco companies lie about how dangerous smoking is, but the victim can, with only limited inducement, avoid the consequences. Once you’ve convinced somebody that they need to produce less CO2, their options for doing so are pretty damned sparse.

And that doesn’t even get into the fact that world capacity to recover from AGW is a shared resource, so if Europe and even the US decide they’ll implement cap-and-trade rather than lots of people dying, China can fire up its coal plants and get both the benefit of cheap fuel, and the benefit of increasing the costs of carbon remediation on the rest of the world.

Solving AGW is a game of chicken; whoever blinks gets to pay the very large bill, while the most psychotic brinksman gets a free ride on whatever solution is settled upon.

Of course, if we keep it up, the US will be the psychotic winner. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that.

TG, please don’t tacitly accept the claim that the released emails actually show any dishonesty on the part of climatologists. It’s a load of shit, which shouldn’t really be surprising.

What color is the sky in your world?

Books were cooked, data was made to fit expectations. raw data was disposed of, opposing viewpoints were suppressed and plans were made to avoid FOIA disclosures of the fraud. While the press is off trying to determine if it’s the Secret Service or the Russians who “hacked” the email server, the real story is the fact that no one is claiming the emails are a hoax.

Now, I assume linking to people who actually know something about what the emails are actually talking about and explain in some detail what they mean will have no effect whatsoever on you, but nonetheless, serveral things to note:

(1) To “cook the books” is a infelicitous, if cute (“cook” ha ha!), way to talk about any possible fraud concerning climate data. The whole exercise of climatology is a matter of taking widely disparate input data and maniuplating it until there are observable trends that can be used to describe the current state of the world and to compare theory to reality. This is necessarily the case for any physical science that’s not amenable to laboratory conditions, such as, say, bridge building. Now, that doesn’t mean that there can’t be fraud in that data manipulation, but it does mean that the mere act of manipulating raw data to result in cooked data (and here, “cooked data” is a term of art for data that has been processed to be more useful) is not necessarily fraudulent. Unless of course we define “fraud” as “being interesting enough to confuse ignoramuses or involving more than pure egoism and therefore confusing to libertarians”. If you want to continue to claim that there’s fraud, please, use a term that shows that you at least know that climatology does in fact involve the use of statistics.

(2) A casual search suggests that there might actually be something to the claim that emails pertaining to FOIA were deleted. On the other hand, there’s no indication that any actual data was deleted, except some local copies of data already publicly accessible. On the other hand, CRU is also not releasing the data that the were given under the condition that they not release it. How terrible.

(3) As for “disclosures of fraud”, the only ones I’ve heard of are the use of the words “trick” and “hide”. Like most words, the exact implications of these really depend on what they were used to refer to. As described in the first like I pointed to, “hide” was used to describe the act of not publishing data known to be wrong, instead using data that was known to be right. Likewise “trick” was used to refer to doing something clever to better represent right data rather than wrong data. Again, maybe this fits your definition of “fraud”, but if it does, I’m guessing your sky is neither blue nor gray, but probably plaid or paisley.

The entire premise of your post is based on omitting a rather important part of what I said (that whole not actual experts thing). Also, I do not deny there is global warming. Leaving out inconvenient data? You should go get a job studying global warming.

And smoking is an interesting comparison. Smoking and GW are the two areas where there is more junk science than anywhere else. From tobacco company researchers saying smokes have vitamin C in them to nannies screaming OMG!! SMOKING CAUSES EVERYTHING FROM DEATH TO STUBBED TOES. Fitting.
.-= SayUncle´s last blog ..EeePC and aging OS =-.

The biggest point of contention I’ve found between climate scientists is not with regard to the climate warming, but with regard to how sensitive the climate is to CO2. The models suggest it is sensitive, but their predictions are non-testable without drastically lowering the current CO2 levels (and the sensitivity that the CFD models that form climate models have is tilted in one direction, tweak the sensitivity a bit, and suddenly CO2 is not really a big deal).

I’m sorry, but your smoking argument is still an appeal to authority. You’re saying we are supposed to believe the cardiologists BECAUSE they are cardiologists, not because they have the facts right. I have heart disease. I have a cardiologist. When my cardiologist wants me to take a certain drug for my condition do I just smile and swallow because he’s a cardiologist? NO, I ask him why. What will it do? Why do I need it? Why this drug and not another? What are the side effects? Then I go and look up as many studies as I can, to find out what they say. Not just the summary but the raw data behind the summary (they’re required to actually publish their raw data). Does my cardiologist think I’m a pain in the ass? You bet. I don’t care, it’s not his heart and body, it’s mine. He’s a great doctor, he put 5 stents in my heart and kept me alive. I like him, but he is human. He makes mistakes, gets bad info from other doctors and journals and misreads studies. If he can’t explain it, I’m not doing it. He is not god, neither is James Hansen.

Dan M – You quote “…we have plenty of direct research showing that smoking does cause lung cancer.” Actually, no we don’t. We have lots of studies that say smoking can increase your risk of certain things happening. Cause and effect are very specific things. If you smoke you will get lung cancer…well, no. Correlation is not causation. But, if you pull the trigger on a loaded gun will a bullet come out of the barrel…yup. We can describe exactly how and why it happens and if it doesn’t, we can investigate and explain exactly why it didn’t. We can’t do that yet with smoking and cancer, or the climate.

Just because climatologists say it’s true doesn’t make it so. Should we take their claims seriously? You bet…and then, just like with my cardiologist, I want to know why and how. Exactly how can a trace gas that is near the lowest levels it has been in the history of the planet suddenly cause the climate to go berserk by increasing from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere, when in the past it has been more than 10 times higher than it is now? How can a climate, that has been relatively stable for millions of years, suddenly develop a positive feedback loop that will cause it to catastrophically run away? Stable processes don’t have positive feedback loops like that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Cause and effect are very specific things. The AGW climatologists can’t explain exactly how their theory really works because nobody understands all the climate forcing mechanisms and all of the feedbacks. All they can do is keep pointing at the temperature data (after they’ve ‘corrected’ it) and say – ‘OMG, it’s getting warmer’. Well, no s**t Sherlock, we’re in an interglacial and coming out of one of the coldest periods (the LIA) in a few thousand years. ‘No, it’s REALLY getting warmer’ Yes, it’s getting warmer. Now, please prove that human beings are CAUSING it to get warmer (and show your work). Correlation is not causation.

Good grief. Yes, there have been times the earth has had vastly more CO2. Have you noticed that it didn’t support a civilization of six billion people at that time? And AGW-deniers wonder why they’re called deniers rather than skeptics.

In particular, note that “use real data data to hide the decline” means “use direct measurements that show increased global temperatures where tree ring growth sizes show a decline that doesn’t match the real measurements”.

Exactly. The point being that they were trying to eliminate the inconvenient “Medieval Warm Period” in order to support their dubious hypothesis…they did this by using tree ring data that supposedly shows no such warm period…but, as soon as they had verifiable, measured data to compare their tree ring data with, it diverged. In other words, the tree ring data is wildly inaccurate. If it’s inaccurate for modern times, what would possibly possess us to believe that it IS accurate for any other time?

And that’s where the subterfuge and trickery is expressed: in publishing tree ring data as an unassailable record of past temperatures right up until the time that the tree ring data can be verified, then switching to measured temperatures (which are subject to layers of undocumented, unjustified and unverifiable “adjustments”) to hide the fact that the tree ring data does not support your contentions.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the tree ring data is accurate, which eliminates the Medieval Warming Period but does not support modern warming, or it’s inaccurate which does NOT eliminate the Medieval Warming Period, tending to demonstrate that the modern warming period is historically extraordinary.

Cherry picking which data to use in order to reach your preordained conclusions is not science…no matter how much of a consensus there is about it.

My reason for asking relates to the reasons I’ve declined your previous attempts to draw me out on this subject. My criticism on the AGW hypothesis comes from an entirely different angle than the one most skeptics take and because of that, those whose familiarity with science is somewhat superficial (and I mean no disrespect to anyone for whom that is the case) or is limited to the realms commonly debated on this matter often aren’t familiar enough with the points I make and the scientific reasoning behind them to be able to fully digest my criticism. Those who are very familiar with science are ignoring fundamental principles; they’re driven by ideology to the point that any discussion would be futile. That’s a big part of why I generally choose not to engage.

If you think you know enough to understand some not difficult points but that nonetheless may be outside your realm of scientific exposure, let me know and may take you up on that long-ago offer.

Dan M – “Good grief. Yes, there have been times the earth has had vastly more CO2. Have you noticed that it didn’t support a civilization of six billion people at that time? And AGW-deniers wonder why they’re called deniers rather than skeptics.”

Please explain what that has to do with my point. Your statement still doesn’t prove that humans are causing the current warming. It also works against the AGW modeling claims of a positive CO2/temperature feedback loop since the climate did not run away then, when conditions were much “worse” than they are now.

To be clear, I don’t tacitly accept that the “Climategate” scientists in question were engaging in bad behavior. My argument is that even if they were, even if we assume the worst about their actions and intentions, it still does very little to diminish the case for man-made global warming.

Uncle:

The thing about the smoking-global warming comparison is that the side that most resembles the tobacco industry in attempting to obfuscate the science is the AGW-denying side. They’re compared with flat-earthers and creationists for a reason. The examples of AGW-deniers quote mining, cherry picking, and otherwise egaging in disingenuous and bad-faith argumentation are simply too numerous to list (click the Climate Change category here, and you’ll find several examples). Even if one assumes the worst about the hacked e-mails that are the hot topic of the day, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the bad behavior of the other side. (Others here have linked examples of detailed unpackings of why the hacked e-mails aren’t the big deal the Glenn Becks of the world claim. Or you can go to SwiftHack for one-stop shopping.)

In any case, I’m not sure I understand your objection. My smoking example doesn’t deny that the smoker has emphysema and heart arrhythmia* any more than you deny that the planet is warming (though, as you can see, other commenters here are doing precisely that). At issue is whether or not the smoking causes and/or exacerbates those conditions, just like you question whether human activity is causing or exacerbating warming.

* Shockingly, I guessed at how that word was spelled and got it right on the first try. And yet I can’t ever manage to get “satellite” right without looking it up first.

Judd:

I am not a scientist, and do not pretend to be one. I’m a reasonably well-informed layperson, but that’s it. Thus, I probably wouldn’t be able to fully comprehend the bullshit you’d attempt to baffle me with argument you’d attempt to dazzle me with, so there’s no need for you to reduce yourself to my pitiful level by attempting to engage. 🙂

Though a good starting point would be to simply answer the two questions the linked survey asks.

Greg F:

For the moment, against my better judgment, I’m going to assume that you’re arguing in good faith, and respond accordingly.

Do you believe the Earth is round? How do you know?

The truth of the matter is that nobody can ever be an expert in everything. At some point, we have to rely on others to be experts on topics where we’re not expert. We do this all the time, and it’s entirely rational. Now, of course, the fact that one individual is an expert in some topic does not mean he’s right about that topic. Thus, saying “so-and-so says so, therefore it must be true” is an argument from authority, and bad news. But when the overwhelming majority of expert opinion coalesces around a single answer, that changes the calculus dramatically. Is it possible that this consensus is wrong? Always. But that’s highly, highly unlikely. When the experts agree to the extent they do on this topic, it’s sensible to entertain the possibility that they’re probably right, and to act accordingly. Does this mean we should accept what they say without question? Of course not. But we shouldn’t blow them off and completely ignore what they say, either.

When ten independent cardiologists tell you that you should quit smoking, you ignore that advice at your peril.

SM:

You’re commenting as if the CRU data was the only data ever collected on the subject in the history of data, and that there’s no other corroborating data we could look at. Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter bullshit.

Madrocketscientist:

There’s a difference between “not directly testable” and “not testable.” Claims about CO2 sensitivity match the former classification, but not the latter. As for your “what’s up with that” link, I haven’t had time to fully read it yet, but it looks to me like another repackaging of the oft-debunked “but Antarctica is cooling!” objection.

Sean:

I wish people would take an attitude like yours when it comes to, say, starting preemptive foreign wars, or tax cuts for the wealthy. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your perspective), we as a society don’t have to wait around for Sean S. to be convinced of anything before we take action. 😉

All:

I’m off to the dentist to endure great pain. When I’m done with that, I’ll return to (hopefully) comment further.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

LarryE made this valid point a little while back, but it still highlights a major issue: When the temperature predictions of the models deviated from the more recent temperature predictions, the scientists truncated the models about at the point of deviation and merged them with new models which placed a higher weight on actual temperature measurements. That they placed higher significance on actual measured temps over the predictions of the model from tree ring (etc) data in the new part of the model makes *some* sense. Actual data is preferrable to modelled data. However, and this is important and hard to understand if you aren’t in the practice of scientific modelling (what Judd said), if your model fails to predict temperatures that are known to be true i.e. the actual measured temps from 1960 onward, so much so that you must remediate your modelling procedure, it means that other predictions of the earlier model, the one that wasn’t adjusted to hide the decline are not reliable.

A big problem I have, and regarding which I don’t expect non-scientists (again, no offense, but if you aren’t in the practice, you are probably not going to think this is a big deal. It just so happens that it is a huge no-no in the practice of publishing scientific literature and grant-writing) to see eye to eye with me, is that the researchers mentioned in this debacle did not, and to this day have not, disclosed the modeling programs, codes, and documention which shows how their models were constructed and which data points were used and discarded. Two weeks ago, the naysayers were those AGW deniers that are so despised on this site. It’s for that reason mainly that I was so-so on saying much on the issue. I said “if something else surfaces, I’ll pounce.” Well, the naysayers are no longer merely joe-six-packs; now, this is being called into question by the computer geeks and research scientists who have endeavored to attempt to determine how the CRU models were created and what the codes were. Many say outright at the get-go that they cannot prove that this code was the one used, but that is besides the point. The point is, and many bring this up, that we don’t know what codes and algorithms were used at the CRU because the CRU did not disclose this information. The failure to disclose the algorithms and codes and documentation is a big scientific no-no. Scientists are required to disclose their data analysis in full in scientific publications.

I’m not going to jump on the “AGW is wrong” bandwagon. Those who are saying “it’s all a hoax” are as ridiculously uninformed as those who believe we actually do have enough data to prove the link between today’s CO2 levels and the temperature of the planet. The science is there to study it, we know about this molecule and how it takes radiation, but there is not yet enough of a data trail to draw as big of a conclusion as AGW. I’m completely on the fence with this, so much as I would be no more shocked for the AGW-CO2 link to be determined as wrong as I would for it to be correct in the future. If anything, I believe CO2 emissions probably correllate to another factor, or factors, which, in combination, are doing some bad things to the planet. However, everyone owes it to themselves to read with unbiased eyes into the issue of the global temperature trends, as it is being discussed here and elsewheres, and it might do you some good as well to learn a little bit about the weird science of the actual CO2 molecule.

On CO2, itself, did you know that water vapor has a higher heat capacity than CO2, which makes it a worse greenhouse gas? This has to do with the number of quantum energy levels for absorbing radiation and re-emitting it as heat. H2O, due to it’s bent shape, has more vibrational degrees of freedom, meanding it is better at absorbing radiation and re-emitting it as heat than CO2, which is a linear molecule, and has less vibrational states. Also, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is correct, there has been enough CO2 to absorb the amount of heat radiated from the sun and bounced back to earth (and then reabsorbed as IR light and re-emitted as heat) to absorb *all* of the earths heat to the point of extinction. In laymans terms the limmitting quantity is the amount of heat radiated from the sun to the earth by way of CO2, and from the earth to the atmosphere and subsequently re-emitted to the earth by CO2, so even if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will not result in increased warming. The possibility remains that something else causes warming, and it could be man made. The linkage between CO2 levels and AGW, however, is weak. This is a clear case of correllation not inferring causation. Even the correllation, at this point, needs to be further substantiated.

What I am going to go balls-out on at this time, though, is the practice of science, and the disclosure of scientific information. The appropriate thing to do, in this case, is to threaten these researchers with the following ultimatum: disclose the codes and related documentation you used to create the models shown in your publications, or else we will recall your papers from the journals. That is the standard practice in science when the scientists fail to report their procedure.

I meant no offense; I just need to have some gauge of my audience. With a fellow scientist I’ll gloss over a number of technical terms because I’ll know (or at least assume, you never can tell these days) they’re familiar with them already and with a lay person I’ll take a bit more time to explain what things mean and provide links where I think it will help.

My reasoning for having reservations about the AGW hypothesis will be a fairly long (even by my standards) which I don’t have time to type out at the moment. I’ll attempt to have it later tonight. In the mean time don’t get yourself too burned out in what debate takes place between now and then; it’s always good to save some room for dessert. 😉

Of course 96% of climate researchers are IPCC! It’s in their best interest to be IPCC, because they’re a huge lobby for funding of climate research.

I do not think it means what you think it means, that is, the membership reflects desires to get a piece of the big cheese. You coroborate the opinions of the people who get you money. Why do you think we use catch phrases like “clean energy” in our grant proposals? If the NSF or DOE or NIH show that their scientists are doing clean energy research, it will help them lobby for more funding, and that is particularly effective when governments think it is important to fund such research.

If another vein of research became more favorable with the government, and it went against the IPCC but was pushed by a different lobby, that lobby would be the recipient of the government’s funds, and what do you think would happen to the IPCC member numbers then? More researchers would join the lobby that is receiving the funding. That’s how it works. That’s what we do. Sucks, which is why it’s important to be a good enough scientist so that the impact of your research isn’t subjective to politics.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Things you can and cannot do with data. **UPDATED** =-.

Maybe it’s my status as a non-scientist, but your long comment seemed to me as though you were calling into question the greenhouse effect, which I thought was pretty well-established science. Like, we’re as sure as we are of anything that without it our planet would be an uninhabitable ice ball.

knowing Judd, you’re only going to entice him all the more into attempting to scientificate your ass when you say stuff like that

That was kind of the point, actually. It’s called “baiting.” Perhaps you’ve heard of it. 🙂

And I’m sorry, but I fail to see where the 96% of scientists who generally agree with the IPCC do so because they’re financially dependent upon them. You do realize, of course, that you’ve just impugned the integrity of your entire chosen profession, including yourself. “We’re all about the funding, and we’ll whore ourselves out to whoever pays us, saying whatever they want to hear, truth be damned.” That’s essentially what you just said, once you strip off the sugar coating.

But even when viewed through that ultra-cynical lens, it turns out that the big money comes from denying the role of fossil fuel use in global warming. So scientists who toe the IPCC line for the money aren’t just unscrupulous hacks; they’re also the stupidest motherfuckers on the face of the planet. It’d be the equivalent of Sam Bradford turning down an NFL contract so he could go get a job working at a bank somewhere, and arguing that he made that decision “for the money.”

Judd:

It won’t surprise you to learn that my answers to Q1 and Q2 are both “yes.” To argue that the answer to Q2 is “no,” you have to argue that there is, in fact, such a thing as a free lunch: that we can pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere consequence-free. I thought a staple of libertarian thought was that TANSTAAFL, so I’ll be interested to hear how you resolve that conflict.

As to your two statements, we can agree on both of them. The relevance of those facts with respect to the current debate is where our agreement is sure to diverge. (Surely you’re not going to argue that because X was true in the past and appears to be true now, X must have been caused by exactly the same things in both cases. I can’t imagine that you would.)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

While I’m not a scientist, I did minor in mathematics, taking all three semesters of engineering calculus, plus discrete mathematics and basic statistics. That might be relevant to your gauge.

Also, no offense taken. 🙂 Like I said to Barbie, I was mostly baiting you. Though I must admit, “I won’t engage because you probably wouldn’t understand my explanation” sounded suspiciously like a cop-out to me.

TANSTAAFL is still very true. Our “lunch” as it were might not be free but if it only costs a couple cents it’s not exactly going to bankrupt us, send the mortgage in to foreclosure and leave us standing outside in downtown Detroit asking for Obamamoney from his stash.

Math: Be warned, however, that over a dozen years separate me from college, so some of it’s bound to be a little rusty. I’m still generally sharp enough to recognize when someone is trying to lie to me with statistics (e.g., “the top 1% pay 41% of [income] taxes,” in another thread). 🙂
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

Yeah, it’s not as cut and dry as you think it is – the greenhouse effect. In fact, I’d venture to say that no one should regard it as cut and dry.

As for funding, grant writing is all about being a good little whore. But research is not. A good scientist will report the accurate scientific results, no matter what. Really good scientists, as I made mention, are able to establish their niche as a high-impact area that can transcend politics. Cancer research, for example, is one area. But for the rest of us, we do experience some ebb and flow, and we change our wording and the institutes we appeal to in order to get funds. It’s not shameful, it’s just what we do. Scientists don’t have to agree with standpoints of the lobbying party. But both parties are mutually interested in the results. Our group’s results will no doubt be used in political lobbies, but we’re not interested in that, we’re interested in the technological advances. I think you underestimate the geekiness of scientists. The results just have to be significant to someone, of interest to someone. If they are, great, we get funds. It doesn’t mean we have to get the result that the granting lobby wants to see most. We want to do good science. It’s generally a good idea to write grants that are realistic in terms of what we expect the results to be, what we think we can show with the science, and the expected results totallly play a role in who we appeal to for money. If we don’t get those results, we don’t get more money, but we have our science and we write another grant. Grants fail to get renewed all the time. If the project is done, or if the results are not what the granters are interested in seeing more of, the grant is terminated. It’s not a big deal. It’s normal, and I don’t think it impugns the integrity. The grants are funding by whoever is most interested in our study, and for whome the results would have the most value. Getting money is all about pimping the potential impact. But the science remains the same: it’s all about what it is possible to show through science, and how the research changes our understanding of the natural world. I don’t think this should surprise you, nor come across as incongruous.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Things you can and cannot do with data. **UPDATED** =-.

Nothing in science is ever really all that cut and dry. Nonetheless, I think it’s fair to state that all other things being equal, if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is higher, the planet will be warmer than if it’s not so high. Do you disagree with that?

And as for the grant process, I’m really not sure what your point is. You can’t out of one side of your mouth accuse virtually the entire scientific community of malfeasance — of making major misstatements in the pursuit of grant money — while simultaneously claiming that this is just how the process works, and is no big deal. If you’re going to accuse the entire climate field of substantially fudging the results (and successfully hiding it such that nobody blows the whistle on them), then I’m afraid you’re going to have to present some evidence to support that point. (The “climategate” e-mails make no mention of funding to my knowledge, nor — as you point out above — of even significantly fudging the numbers in a verboten way, so that’s not your evidence.)

So once again, I’m left to wonder just exactly what your original point was supposed to have been. 😉
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

I thought about this some more whilst at the gym. There is nothing unethical about pimping the appeal – or “wow factors” – of proposed research in grant proposals. It really isn’t as wishy washy as I think you’re interpretting it to be. Basically, we want our proposed research to have as wide and broad of an impact as possible. Into each grant, we cram in every possible gain – in terms of results – that we can imagine. For example, the materials I use in my research have potential applications besides energy: improved bio-sensing, more efficient catalysis of compounds used in industrial synthesis, to name a few. We list all of them in our grant. It doesn’t mean we push through on all of those uses. That’s our discretion. We push the ones we think will have the biggest impact on society AND on science, and if we have time and money left over, we play around in some of those other areas.

There are distinct sections for impact in the grants. How is proposed research of interest to the community? That is one question that must be addressed in the grant. What new scientific insights will the research seek to obtain? That is a totally different question and a distinct section. The latter section has an important hidden meaning, and that is this: should you fail to reach your objective, in terms of the results, or making good progress in the solution of a problem, what will be accomplished scientifically as a result of doing the studies. Here is where the scientist must explain how the act of doing such research is important. The reality is that the science must be interesting regardless of what the results eventually show.

It’s also not as if appealing to the big cheese institutes is some kind of low down skeevy practice. It’s not patronization. We don’t have to placate them with our results. Shit, that’s not what science is. We don’t know what our results will be when we write grants, we just say we hope to get results – period. As long as the results bear enough impact for the scientific community, research is likely to be continued. And if not, we take our results, and we write a new grant, get some more money, and go from there. As I said earlier, look at cancer research. We haven’t succeeded in finding a more effective treatment than chemotherapy yet and those researcher still get funded. but you’d be stupid to imply that cancer researchers have failed and shouldn’t be funded. Our objectives change with the changing field.

It doesn’t make me happy that we have to get funds by appealing to political leanings, but that’s the reality of government funded research. But we scientists are really big geeks. While it’s nice if you can be personally interested in your field of research, like I am with energy, truth be told, if the only thing we were funded to study was poop, we’d find a way to advance science anyways. No joke. Grant filling is kind of a fucked up system. It’s highly political. That’s stupid, in my opinion. There are a lot of really good ideas that don’t get funded because the grant writers didn’t emphasize “nano” or “green” enough in their proposal. Those are the guys who end up being relegated down to studying poop. But still, they will find some new use of technologies to advance science through the study of poop, because that’s what you do when poop is all you have. And those scientific advances that are made through studies that no one thought would be important at the time can percolate throughout the scientific community, and be useful in other studies. And because we’re big geeks, we always find it amusing when we can say to our audience at some meeting that we were able to use a technology developed from a poop study in the treatment of a disease, or manufacture of a rare compound, etc. We’re big kids, what can I say.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..Things you can and cannot do with data. **UPDATED** =-.

T – “For the moment, against my better judgment, I’m going to assume that you’re arguing in good faith, and respond accordingly.”

Yes, I am arguing in good faith. I started with the basics because I believe you are at least willing to listen. Do I think I’ll change your mind? No, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a civil discussion.

Do I believe the Earth is round? No, I KNOW the Earth is round, I have seen the factual evidence of it. The theories based on a round planet have not been proven false. I have seen the curvature of the Earth (I’m a pilot). Calculations based on a round planet (ie navigation) work the way they are supposed to. So, the facts support the theory.

Your statement of the theory of argument from authority when experts are involved is spot on.

“When ten independent cardiologists tell you that you should quit smoking, you ignore that advice at your peril.”

I agree, unless you have facts that you believe falsify their theory, which I don’t, I was just trying to make a point. I quit smoking when my cardiologist told me to.

As for AGW. I am not a climatologist, but I have a Master’s in engineering with a bunch of statistics courses and other stuff (I also have a minor in Astronautical Engineering which helps with the whole round planet thing ;o) .) When people start tossing stats around I can usually tell if something smells wrong. Take a look at the USHCN data:

Look at the raw data and then look at their final adjustments. I’m sorry, but that is just too convenient. I’ve read their explanations, but I admit I haven’t had time to hunt down all of Karl’s articles so I don’t understand all of their programs. It still doesn’t pass my smell test. Mann and Briffa et als proxy reconstructions still have a problem with the post 1960 divergence and there is still no good explanation out there of why or what that means for the rest of the reconstruction. Yes, I’ve read their explanations and Gavin’s stuff at RealClimate, but it’s not convincing to me. And they still keep truncating the plots there. GISS keeps altering their data and nobody is quite sure how because they still haven’t released all of their methods or raw data (and if Hansen, who you can’t shut up, claims one more time that he’s being muzzled, my head will explode). Does all this prove they’re wrong? Nope, but it starts to raise doubts in my mind. If you want me to accept your authority as an expert, show me your work. I may not understand all of it, but I’ll be more willing to accept your authority.

Any good theory must allow you to make preditions and perform experiments that can be replicated and proven true or false. None of the current models has even come close to explaining what the climate has been doing for the last ten years or so. None of them can even make a decent reproduction of past climate without massive tweaks. The bottom line is that no climatologist in either the AGW or skeptic camp has a clue exactly what is happening and why. The IPCC knows this, which is why they don’t call anything in their report a ‘prediction’, they just have scenarios. [By the way, take some of their projections and scenarios and plot them backwards and play with the slopes…see what you get.] There are partial theories and partial explanations but you’re talking about a complex, non-linear, chaotic system which is beyond our complete understanding right now.

I don’t believe in the precautionary principle, I believe in costs and benefits. The cost of trashing the global economy based on such incomplete data is unconscionable. Should we be moving away from fossil fuels? Yes, but we have time to do that and the so-called ‘green technologies’ are not mature enough to take the load yet. If you look at the energy profiles of wind and solar, they may never be able to. You want to get rid of coal plants? Start building nuclear, now, and quickly. I could go on but it’s getting late. Anyway, that’s why I’m not buying what they’re selling. The burden of proof is on the the AGW side, who are claiming that this is different from everything the planet has ever gone through in the past, and their facts just don’t add up yet.

It would help, as a starting point, if you could answer the two questions posed by the survey. (The fact that you’re calling into question the USHCN data set seems to suggest that you’d answer ‘no’ to Q1 — but I don’t want to assume too much.) That would tell us what our differences are. Further, it would help if you answered the question I posed to Barbie: All other things being equal, if CO2 concentrations increase, should we expect a warmer planet, a cooler planet, or no perceptible difference? That will get us to a good jumping off point for discussion. But I’m not sure how much point there really is to it all. If the guys at RealClimate and ClimateProgress haven’t been able to articulate the arguments in a way that’s convincing to you, I’m damn sure not going to be able to. This is what they do for a living, and I’m just some asshole with a blog. 🙂 (Actually, it’s not even my blog — I’m a guest here.)

WRT nuclear, I’m on the fence about that one. It’s probably better than coal, but it comes with its own serious problems, not the least of which being the NIMBY problem, waste disposal, huge startup costs, and security. Personally, I’m not a believer in a “silver bullet” approach to getting off of fossil fuels. It’s going to take a multi-pronged solution: wind, hydro, solar, tide, efficiency, maybe even some nuclear, as you suggest. No one thing is going to cut the mustard.

And, for whatever little it’s worth, there are good reasons to get off of fossil fuels that have nothing whatsoever to do with global warming. Which to me is another reason to behave as though the overwhelming majority of qualified experts are actually right about this stuff, and start making the necessary adjustments. Well, that, and the fact that I don’t share your belief that weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels means Certain Economic Doom.

Finally, you might not like this fact, but in practice, among qualified experts, the burden of proof lies with those who dispute the consensus.And there’s plenty of fame and fortune for anyone who proves them wrong and initiates a scientific revolution, so it’s not as if the incentives prohibit this. The burden of proof for AGW was met over a decade ago, at least as far as the overwhelming majority of qualified experts are concerned, so that burden has now shifted.

P.S. How do you know that what you perceived as the curvature of the earth is, in fact, curvature, and not just an optical illusion? 🙂 You don’t have to answer that — it was a rhetorical question, AKA me being a smart-ass.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

“You can’t out of one side of your mouth accuse virtually the entire scientific community of malfeasance — of making major misstatements in the pursuit of grant money — while simultaneously claiming that this is just how the process works, and is no big deal.”

Um, that’s not what I said. I never accused an entire scientific community of malfeasance. Appealing to the granting institutions and emphasizing the potential impacts of causes they care about isn’t unethical so long as the proposed research has *that potential impact*. Also, I think it’s totally fair to suggest that the *handful of researchers at the center of this issue* – also not the entire scientific community which is what you said – were perhaps motivated by the fact that they got millions of dollars in research money by screaming “we’re all gonna die if we don’t fix this” to bias their results in a manner that justified the research spending. As a scientist, this is an issue and it is something we are all told outright to be wary of! So, yeah, I think it’s fine to say I think their sense of ethics caved under that pressure.

” If you’re going to accuse the entire climate field of substantially fudging the results -”

again, not what I said. Just this handful of guys.

“(and successfully hiding it such that nobody blows the whistle on them), then I’m afraid you’re going to have to present some evidence to support that point. (The “climategate” e-mails make no mention of funding to my knowledge, nor — as you point out above — of even significantly fudging the numbers in a verboten way, so that’s not your evidence.)”

Already on that. The money motivation isn’t what I’m going after. It’s just a guess at what motivated these guys to not disclose their fancy algorithms. I am also not talking about the emails, so, nice try ther. Feel free to stop by and see for yourself. You’ll find that the emails are not under discussion, but the data figures are, and there’s a nice PDF linked for you, which substantiates the claims made in the thinker article, since I suspect you’ll do what LarryE did, which was note that it’s in the American Thinker and proclaim that it’s beneath you to read such smut. I did the ground work, along with Judd and Dr. Boyfriend, to check out the sources of the figures, discuss the scientific soundness (his explanation of the figures was sound by our findings) and they are all there in that PDF. More scientists are now catching on to the fact that they can’t find the codes used by the CRU and this is because those codes haven’t been disclosed. These guys are trying to figure out what was done by the CRU researchers – which is a normal practice in science: replication, in order to determine if the results are replicable. Good scientific results should be replicable, and in attempting to replicate, they found that the CRU groups involved have not disclosed which codes were used. You’ll find another link for that at the bottom.

SB, doesn’t your last post effectively say, “Yeah, we have to get funding from those who want particular answers, but that doesn’t mean the answers finally given are false.”? And if so, doesn’t that mean that it doesn’t matter if the IPCC is where the money is?

Sorry, SB but your tendency to ramble has made it very difficult for me to discern just exactly WHAT it is you’re trying to get across. Still, even with your last clarification. 🙂

So perhaps a few questions will help me figure this out: are you accusing the CRU guys of malfeasance? And if you are, do you think this invalidates the entire concept of AGW? If your answer to the latter question is “no,” then we have no quarrel here. I’m ambivalent on the former question, actually — I don’t yet have adequate information to assess that issue, and haven’t really cared much about it to be honest. It’s egg in the face, to be sure, but it’s rather like when a few members of a political party do something bad — by itself, it doesn’t discredit the whole party.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..How To Think Like an AGW-Denier =-.

I see at least part of why we’re talking past one another — apparently, you’re referring to stuff you wrote on your blog, and which I haven’t actually seen or read. So I’ll try and find time to read that, and then re-read what you wrote here.

The best time to do that will likely be when I’m not recovering from oral surgery, i.e., not tonight. 🙂

It would also help if you’d explain just what you meant when you wrote:

Of course 96% of climate researchers are IPCC! It’s in their best interest to be IPCC, because they’re a huge lobby for funding of climate research.

In response to the fact that 96% of climate researchers state that they agree with the CW on climate change on an anonymous survey, or how that isn’t accusing them of being disingenuous in their stated agreement.

Golly gee, Dan M, I almost didn’t reply. I mean you linked to a tee-shirt. I’m not sure I can top that. Let me try.

Let’s start with the two things we both seem to agree to (or at least don’t deny)

1. original data was destroyed
2. plans were hatched to dodge FOIA requests.

Let’s think about this. We’re doing science, right? Not fitting data to a conclusion we’ve already thought up. OK, in that case, there really ought not to be a need for FOIA requests because the data should be freely available.

Another scientist out there could also do some core sample, and compare that data to the other data. If it agrees, great. If not, than perhaps someone could propose a different theory and, you know, expand human knowledge or something.

“If I have seen farther, it’s because I’ve stood on the shoulders of giants”, except that doesn’t happen if you destroy your original data and hide your Fortran programs with the incriminating evidence of your book-cooking in the comments.

tgirsch:

Remember when I gave those examples of “gutter-science”?

Remember? Sassafrass extract has that sketchy, barely plausible link to cancer. This is seized upon to ban the substance just because it happens to be handy in MDMA (ecstasy) synthesis.

Remember? Phenylpropanolamine is no longer sold without a prescription due to a theorized increased risk of stroke in younger women, except it’s also useful for the illicit manufacture of amphetamine, so it’s not OTC anymore.

Well this here is _the_smoking_gun_ that these scientists were doing gutter science.

Yes, I know it merely casts a long shadow upon other researchers, but if I was those other researchers, and I thought my raw data, my methodology, my science could stand the light of day, I’d be falling all over myself to get that original data and those Fortran programs that did not have incriminating evidence in the comments out there as fast as possible. If I wait 6 months, people might think I scrubbed something.

If the “sunspot existence deniers” really think they have science and not voodoo on their side, let’s see them prove it. We shouldn’t need to tease the truth out with FOIA requests or seekret leaked emails.

Dan (and T):
I’ll try this one more time: It is ok if the experiments you do are slightly different from the ones you propose originally in order to get funding. What’s not ok is to say – after having done the experiments – that you did something other than what you actually did. Research proposals unfortunately are nearly always politicized in order to increase chances of funding. But research proposals are merely internal documents, not disclosed to the public. That said, it doesn’t matter what researchers purport to do. What matters is what they actually do, and how those results are reported, because those are public matters.

T – is that better? I don’t think I can get more succinct than that.

On your other questions:

I am not *yet* accusing the CRU guys of fraud, though it looks more and more suspicious every day. I (and many others now) am accusing them of not disclosing the algorithm the used to massage their data. It is a serious issue in the publication of research.

If it turns out they committed fraud, do I think this means AGW is wrong? No. True, I don’t think our CO2 data proves the AGW model, and it isn’t entirely consistent with the model either, and that link would be further shaken if the CRU’s data manipulation is recalled. Essentially, I’m reluctant to grant the theory much creed at this point, given the contentious nature regarding the CO2 data and it’s fit with temperature trends. But I would be even more cautious about throwing the theory away entirely. That would be utterly stupid.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..A Scientist’s Manifesto =-.

This looks incredibly fishy to me. No credible publicly funded research organization would require that it’s researchers not release this kind of information to the journals that are publishing their data. We’re talking about CO2 data from treerings and the like, and data fitting algorithms. I wouldn’t exactly call that highly sensitive material. It’s not like it would put anyone at risk for some kind of act of terrorism should the wrong party get their hands on it.

The claims made in your link, T, need some serious substantiation. As far as I can see, there about as substantial as those leaked emails. which is to say they’re practically meaningless.

If the restrictions are true, and the CRU was prohibited from releasing their data, then what the CRU published shouldn’t have made it into publication. Again, no respectable institution would ok that!

“This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.”

Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.

Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.”

In any case, if someone else – the WMO it would seem – is the real baddy who isn’t allowing for the disclosure of data, it still means the CRU’s groups’ modeling of climate trends are highly questionable. All this has done is transfer my rage from the CRU to the WMO.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..A Scientist’s Manifesto =-.

I think your last post is pretty reasonable. It makes you a AGW skeptic, rather than a denier. That’s unusual (and I’d guess probably wrong), but legitimate.

As for your last explanation of funding, that’s clean and sensible. Perhaps I misread something you said earlier, but it had seemed that you had claimed before that well-documented consensus among climatologists was severely distorted due to funding decisions, like pro-smoking science paid for by tobacco companies. Did I misunderstand you? Do you think both AGW and smoking are distorted to falsehood by funding? Neither of them? Some other choice that I’ve missed?

As for data availability, I see you point. The problem is that the distinction between mad-at-CRU and mad-at-WMO needs to be made explicit, or you’re gonna sound like SM and SU. (And Sc. And I’m talking to SB. What’s up with all the damned S names?)

My next post is north of 1500 words. It’s loaded with sciencey stuff I’ve done my best to explain in the clearest terms I can. If any part of it doesn’t make sense, highlight is and I’ll do my best to clarify. It’s also probably full of typos for which I apologize in advance. Please read the whole thing.

As I alluded to before, my objections to the AGW hypothesis are different than what you hear from most of the people who remain unconvinced. I accept and agree with many of the underlying premises stated by the people on your side of the issue. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Human CO¬2 emissions are increasing the amount of that gas in the atmosphere. The presence of carbon dioxide from human sources has caused the temperature to increase and more emissions will cause global temperatures to increase even more.

The question though is a matter of scale.

First off it’s important to point out that the relationship between the concentration of absorbing species in solution (CO2 in this case) and the amount of radiation it absorbs is not linear. It’s logarithmic. What that means in layman’s terms (and I’m making these numbers up for the purpose of illustrating and keeping the math simple) is that if raising the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 100 parts per million (ppm) to 200 ppm is shown to raise the overall global temperature by one degree that then increasing from 200 ppm to 300 ppm will not result in another full degree increase; to go up a full degree you would need to go from 200 ppm to 400, then from 400 ppm to 800 ppm for the next full degree, from 800 to 1600 for the next and so on and so on and so on.

We also know something about the baseline temperature for the earth. We can use Stefan’s Law (sometimes known at the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) to calculate the black body temperature of the planet. Correcting for albedo (i.e.: Light reflected back in to space by the clouds in the atmosphere) we arrive at a value of 255K. (As an aside if you’re unfamiliar with the “K”, it refers to the Kelvin temperature scale. A change of one Kelvin is equivalent to a change of one degree Celsius; the difference between them is only the zero point. Celsius uses the freezing point of water as zero degrees and Kelvin uses absolute zero as its base. Zero degrees Celsius is equivalent to 273.15K, One degree Celsius is 274.15K and so on. The reason I use Kelvin is because negative values don’t exist on that scale and that is a necessary feature for the calculations that will come later.) This is what the temperature of earth would be without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Climatologists might be able to cook up all these fancy-schamancy computer models but I don’t much care for those. A model is only as good as the method that constructed it and when you’re trying to come up with a model for something as complex as the earth’s climate, there’s a whole lot that can go wrong. More to the point, why bother trying to construct a model when you can just use the real thing instead? (Please note if you’re a climatologist looking to get your grant renewed, I realize I’ve just uttered a blasphemous statement and I don’t care).

We can use known global temperatures, measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, that 255K zero point and our knowledge that absorption is proportional to the log of the concentration to construct a somewhat crude but still illustrative model. Using the actual observed data is useful because it takes everything into account exactly as it behaves in the real system. Anything you want to argue about re-emission, secondary effects, ocean currents and whatever else is a phenomenon that’s already contributing to the current warming trend so it will already be factored in to a model based on real data.

Now on to our data set. I’ll start simple. In the interest of disclosure and allowing you to check my calculations and so I cannot be accused of fudging the numbers, the carbon dioxide concentration values I’m citing come from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Labs as well as the Mauna Loa observatory. Oak Ridge provides early numbers up until the 1970’s and Mauna Loa goes from the late 1950’s until the present. Where they have data for the same years their numbers are usually very close to each other. I’ll use Mauna Loa where available and supplement with Oak Ridge for the earlier years. The average global temperature values come from NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Science. All the numbers I’m going to calculate will be based off the assumption that 100% of the observed change in climate is due to increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In real terms this is a bad assumption that will overstate the effect of CO2. This is worth keeping in mind.

For my first extremely crude example I’ll take two years, specifically the latest for which I have climate and CO2 data (2007) and the bottom of the cooling trend seen from the 1940’s to the 1970’s (1976). We can make a crude, rough estimate of the net effect of CO2 by looking at the data from just these two years. Knowing that the relationship should be logarithmic we can calculate ln([CO2]2007/[CO2]1976)=(change in temperature between those two years)*proportionality constant. Plugging the numbers in we’ve got ln(383.71/332.05)=(0.94)*proportionality constant. Solving for that proportionality constant gives us a value of 0.1538. Say now we wanted to find out the effect on temperature of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Applying the same equation ln(2)=(change in temperature)*0.1538. The change in temperature would be 4.5 degrees if we dump 20,000 gigatons (IIRC) if CO2 in to the atmosphere. That’s a gross overestimation calculated by selecting about the two worst data points I could. If I’d done the math with the numbers from 1900 and 2000 that temperature change for doubling atmospheric CO2 would drop to the two degree range.

But that model’s very limited so let’s go for something with a little less margin of error. If you take the NASA GISS average global temperature data from 1880 – 2007 and the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide concentration values for the most recent years and the Oak Ridge data going back farther you can make a scatter plot of [CO2] vs. average global temperature going back to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Since the relationship between concentration and absorption is logarithmic, this data should be plotted and then the best-fit logarithmic line found. Take the time to do that and you arrive at an equation of 3.2587ln(x)+268.38. Plug in a carbon dioxide concentration for “x” and you spit out the approximate average global temperature for that concentration. The Mauna Loa Observatory reported the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2007 was 383.71 ppm. The equation predicts the average temperature would be 287.77K. NASA’s measured temperature was 287.88K. If we double the amount of carbon dioxide from the 2007 levels to 767.42 ppm we’re predicted to see a temperature of 290.03K, or a mere 2.14 degrees warmer than 2007. For reference, we’re up just over 30% in carbon dioxide from 1880 to 2007. Even at the rate we were increasing CO2 emissions during the early part of this decade, if we kept on increasing at the same rate it will take nearly two centuries to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus see that two degree uptick.

If you were paying attention earlier I said the earth’s temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases was 255K but the y intercept of my logarithmic plot (268.38) is quite a bit higher when they should be nearly identical. This actually makes sense because only a small fraction of the warming from 255K was due to carbon dioxide. The variation of this value from Stefan’s Law is reflective of the role water vapor and other trace gases like methane also play in the greenhouse effect.

“But Judd,” you say. “What about that graph in Al Gore’s movie where he shows the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures? If carbon dioxide isn’t driving climate change then how do you explain such a strong correlation?” I’m glad you asked. The biggest repository of carbon dioxide on the planet is the oceans. Gases like CO2 readily dissolve in water. Solubility though depends on temperature. The higher the temperature of a liquid the less soluble a gas becomes. You can test this yourself if you don’t believe me. Take two cans of soda from the refrigerator and open them simultaneously. Set one opened can outside on a hot day, the other back in the refrigerator and see which goes flat first. Just to save you from waiting until next July, I’ll ruin the suspense and tell you it will be the one that sits outside; as the liquid warms the carbon dioxide dissolved therein becomes less soluble and escapes the can faster. The exact same principle applies to the oceans. If the earth were to warm, some of the CO2 dissolved in the seas would escape and enter the atmosphere. As the planet cooled that escaped gas would become more soluble in water again, leave the atmosphere and go back in to the ocean. Plot the relationship and viola! a near perfect correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature.

Now everything I’ve said could be dead wrong; I’m a responsible scientist so I have to allow for the possibility there’s data I don’t have or that I’ve made a mistake somewhere in my analysis such that my conclusions can be invalidated. In the absence of that I hardly think the case for AGW is strong enough to warrant spending a trillion dollars we don’t have to combat the problem and risk tearing down capitalism when the American economy has been responsible for creating more wealth and more prosperity for more people than anything else in the history of man’s relation to man.

Your last post seems sensible enough, except that it seems to assume that the only data every used by anyone on the face of the planet to model the climate is the CRU data from a university that three weeks ago nobody had ever heard of. I’m not entirely sure that’s true. What of the USHCN data that Greg F linked, for example? They essplain every adjustment they’re making, and they make the raw data they used available for download. Also, Mann’s work (the oft-debated “hockey stick,” which has ostensibly been sullied by these revelations) has, in fact, been replicated by others. How could they replicate it if they didn’t have access to data?

The Watts Up With That link discusses how sketchy certain temperature adjustsments are. It’s not about Antartica (although this link, from a climate scientist with a PhD from a good school, does discuss it a little bit).

Regarding the IPCC Scientists. I trust the motives and agenda of the IPCC about as much as I trusted the motives and agenda of the GWB intelligence machine (since they both seem to have a common motive which I grow weary of, i.e. raise fear & alarm in order to build public support for something).

Aside from that, others seem to have addressed my points.

As for my background, I hold a Master’s in Engineering Physics & Computer Science, and I work with & write CFD models for fun & profit (for the Aerospace Industry). So when I discuss model sensitivity, I’m not talking out of school.

I never assumed the CRU were the only research groups doing this research, or working with this kind of data. They just happen to be the particular group I’m scruitinizing, mainly because of the popularity of the work they’ve published, and how many people seem to be taking it as strong or conclusive evidence of AGW, which is really is not (strong or conclusive at this point). Of course, given this new information about restrictions – which still look fishy to me – the only thing it is likely to change is the target of my rage. If true, everyone should be deeply disturbed by the WMO’s shady restriction of data. Notice how the national labs, such as Oak Ridge for one example, allow their researchers and associate researchers to disclose their data *when it is published*? That’s the way it is supposed to be done because these are publically funded laboratories. You can’t disclose it prior to publication, but afterwords, it is expected.

As for the Oak Ridge National Lab stuff that Greg F linked to, I need more time to review it carefully. At a quick scan, they do appear to explain what they have done with the recent parts of the models, but the problem remains that they had to make a lot of adjustments to the models to get them to fit the current temperatures. Which means that the models for some reason had stopped being adequate for the prediction of temperature. Which in turn means that we still don’t know if the models were accurate in their predicitions of temperatures that predated our instrumental measurements. That’s what I mean when I say they can’t have it both ways. They can’t say “our models were wrong in their predicitions of current temperatures and thus needed adjustments,” while also saying, “but we’re sure the models were accurate in their predicitions of temperatures pre-1850.” I noticed that the USHCN link didn’t use their updated models to re-reconstruct the temps from 1000-1900 – or at least they didn’t show that. THAT would be the appropriate experiment to verify that what we’re saying about earlier temperatures that make for the hockeystick model are correct. THey should use their new and improved model that fits the current temps to re-fit all of the temps. As far as I’ve seen, they haven’t done that, and that means they have to choose which is the correct model: the 1000-1900’s segment which failed to fit recent temperatures, or the recent model. You simply cannot cut and past parts of the models together – which is what the CRU did. So, if you don’t want me to call the CRU groups fraudulent, fine. But that does mean I do have to call them out on doing piss poor and truthfully degrading “science” with these models. It seems that the rest of the scientists who have experience with modelling agree with me on that.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..A Scientist’s Manifesto =-.

Dan M,
actually AGW “skepticism” isn’t all that uncommon amongst other practicing scientists, I’ve found. Many of us are, like me, of the mindset that we should conserve energy and resources and try not to polute our air and water because we breath it and drink it. If you pry, and ask us to consider the available data, many of us feel the same way about it: it’s inconclusive, but interesting, and should continue to be studied.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..A Scientist’s Manifesto =-.

note*
by many, I don’t mean the majority, I mean that I don’t think we’re a rare breed.

Also, T, that survey at the bottom of your post? It’s so sheistilly worded that I don’t think you can make the inference that 19/20 scientists think the AGW theory is correct. Considering what is now apparent regarding the modelling of pre 1800 temps, anyone who answered yes to question 1 really can’t be sure of what they are talking about. If we agree that the adjustment to the models which make them able to track with current temps is kosher, then no one can say we know whether the models were reliable in their predicitions of pre 1800’s temperatures. ….which makes question 2 pretty much obsolete.

I call selection bias, with a possible side order of confirmation bias. 🙂 Plus, the plural of anecdote, and all that.

Regarding the USHCN data, perhaps this is where my non-science background is hurting me, but I’m not seeing how models are relevant here. Unless I’m misunderstanding something, they’re not presenting modeled data; they’re presenting (adjusted) observed data. IOW, if I understand it correctly, their data isn’t the result of models, but rather a standard against which the output of models should be compared in order to judge the validity of that model.

MadRocketScientist:

The problem with your mistrust of the IPCC scientists is that the motives of their opposition at least as suspect, and arguably a whole lot more so. And all the latter group needs to do to “win” is to delay — cast doubt, and advocate a reasonable-seeming “wait and see” approach. Problem is, none of this is new. We’ve been waiting and seeing for 20 years, and while there have of course been problems, the former group has been a lot closer to right a lot more of the time than the latter group. It’s the latter group, for example, that keeps moving the goal posts (from “the planet isn’t warming” to “the planet’s warming, but it’s not because of human activity” to the more recent “the planet’s warming and human activity is part of why, but it’d be too expensive to do anything about it”). And to the extent that the AGW scientists have been wrong, it’s generally been that they’ve underestimated the impacts.

Judd:

I have read, and am still digesting. A few notes, however:

– The explanations are appreciated (I’d rather you give too much detail than too little), but I already knew what logarithmic progression and Kelvin are. I say that not to criticize you for explaining them, but to give you an idea of where I am on the science-literacy-o-meter.
– While I presume your calculations are intended to contradict what mainstream AGW scientists are saying, they seem to actually dovetail quite nicely with the more conservative predictions they’re making: a degree or two of warming over the course of the next century. So it seems that what’s at issue isn’t the amount of warming, but whether or not that amount of warming is a big deal. Yes?
– You seem to be assuming a linear expansion of CO2 concentration, which seems to me to be a faulty assumption. Though your paragraph on that was imprecisely worded so I could be misinterpreting it. To be clear, the ground zero assumption shouldn’t be that CO2 output continues at the rate of the last ten years, but that it continues to accelerate at the rate projected over the last ten years.
– Believe it or not, I’ve never seen An Inconvenient Truth, nor read the book. My climate advocacy has nothing whatsoever to do with Al Gore, and predates me even knowing about his positions on the matter by a fair number of years.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

I knew you would know what a logarithmic projection is and figured you would know Kelvin but I was hoping that more than just you would read it. As you said, better to overexplain than leave holes.

To reiterate, I said two degrees over the next two centuries assuming we were increasing usage at the same rate we did in the early part of this decade before the recession kicked in. Going up by the six degrees (which I think was the IPCC’s upper limit) will take over a millennium.

All I can responsibly do is assume a linear expansion of CO2. The argument can be made that our rate of usage will increase as more of the third world develops thus increasing demand and a counter-argument can be made that our rate of increase will level off as population stagnates in the developed world, increased oil prices stifle demand and alternative energies become more cost efficient. At its core attempting to guess what will happen to the rate of increase of human carbon dioxide emissions is an exercise in sociology and that being a somewhat less exact science I think the fairest thing to do is take our current rate of growth and extrapolate from that.

Spare yourself from An Inconvenient Truth. Gore’s voice should be marketed as a cure for insomnia.

“Unless I’m misunderstanding something, they’re not presenting modeled data; they’re presenting (adjusted) observed data. IOW, if I understand it correctly, their data isn’t the result of models, but rather a standard against which the output of models should be compared in order to judge the validity of that model.”

Yes, you’re misunderstanding “model”. That’s a fixable problem. I’ll walk you through it. Lets start from the beginning, before any adjustments were made anywhere, when everything was nice and kosher. Scientists didn’t have measurements of temperature for years pre 1850 because no one was walking around with thermometers. So they had to come up with a model for the temperature in terms of how temperature depends on some variable. This way, they could take measurements of something from treer rings and ice cores and say “based on our understanding of science, a measurement of X amount of this would correspond to a temperature of blah.”

we cool so far?

That is what is called modelling. In the climate research science jargon, they called it “reconstructing the temperature.” It means the same thing. What is being said about temperatures prior to 1850 is a “reconstruction”: the temperatures were modelled based on a measurement of something assumed to related to temperature. It is the same way forensic scientists can take a skull and reconstruct or model what the persons face may have looked like.

Ok, I just picked through the USHCN a second time, and they’re talking about adjustments made to how we measured temperatures. Fine and good and all. But they’re not really what concerns me since a large part of the issue is the the purportedly lower temperatures prior to the 1800’s in the hockey stick model. The USHCN is only showing data from 1900 onward. We don’t need to discuss that. I accept that the scientists will figure out the best way to use thermometers on their own. The issue at hand is still that the model which is based on reconstruction of temperature failed to predict the current temperatures. Though not necessarily important to how we determine temperature currently, with more measurements included, it does mean that the model was flawed.

Now, you have to think back to the whole point of reconstructing the data. We developed the reconstruction in order so that we could predict what the temperature was way back long ago these from other variables that we can measure, right? Now, we have reconstructed data – a model – that says we should be able to predict temperature based on these other measurements. So we continue to take measurements and we expect that, if we have made a good model, an accurate reconstruction program, we will be able to input our tree ring and ice core etc data and get an output of temperature that tracks with our measured temperature.

Are we good on this concept of the reconstructed temps or model as an input-output machine? That’s essentially all it is. Prior to 1850, we have no measured temps to compare it with, but after that, we can take the output of temperature that our machine predicts and see how well it tracts with the temperature we measure.

At some point in the 1900’s the models that these scientists were using to predict temperatures based on other measurements began to deviate from the measured temps, that is, the output from the programs failed to match the measured temps.

Do you disagree that the reconstructed data failed to track the current temperatures? Here, look:

I’m going to assume you’re not so delerious from oral surgery that you can’t look at the plot with all of the models and the measured temps and see that the models show a decline where the actual measured temps begin to rise around the 1900s.

Imagine you are the scientist looking at the output from the machine which is supposed to predict temperature. The output doesn’t match the actual measurement when you compare it. And this goes on for years: the program spits out a value that predicts deacreased temps while your actual measured temps are much higher. What do you think?

There are two options: 1.) the measured temperatures are unreliable; 2.) the model is unreliable. So, what you should do is check them both. The USHCN discussed their adjustment to the temperature readings. Here’s where it all comes to a head: the CRU and WMO merely said that their models failed to accurately track changes in temperature after 1960, and so they truncated the models at that point and used another way of tracking temps for years onward from 1960. The key point is that they conclude that their models failed to predict changes in temperature. These same models are the ones being used to “prove” that temps were lower in the middle of the past millium than they are now (hockeystick), but if the models were shown to be innaccurate – at any point, it doesn’t matter where – it means that you cannot assert that the same model wasn’t also innaccurately predicting temperature elsewhere. Since we have no way to check the model’s predictions of temperature for the period of 1000 – 1850, and we know it showed innaccuracies and THE RESEARCHERS DON’T KNOW WHY THE MODEL STOPPED ACCURATELY TRACKING TEMPS (that what they said – it just didn’t give accurate answers for some unknown reason), we can’t rely on what that model predicted anywhere else.

This is pertinent to claims that temperatures were steadilly cooler from the year 1000 until the late 1800’s when mankind begun fucking everything up. Since the earlier temps were based on models of questionable reliability, the AGW theory has some serious holes to fill, and it really cannot support the claim that temps were indeed cooler prior to the 1800s.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..A Scientist’s Manifesto =-.

Don’t lump me in with deniers, I accept that the globe is warming, always have.

“opposition at least as suspect, and arguably a whole lot more so. And all the latter group needs to do to “win” is to delay — cast doubt, and advocate a reasonable-seeming “wait and see” approach”

So? Your point is? Listen, the big rule in science is this, the more extraordinary your claim, the more extraordinary your evidence supporting that claim must be. The AGW set is not just claiming that the climate is trending to warmer, but that humans are responsible for it. That is truly an extraordinary claim, that humans have been doing enough to significantly alter the climate more than natural processes can. Natural processes that are incredibly chaotic, very poorly understood, and are powerful enough to do a rather efficient job of leveling humans and our societies when we run afoul of them.

Now, in the past, people were unsure of the warming part until enough evidence was gathered to begin to support a slight increase in global average temperature. People accept that changes are happening. The idea that we might be contributing to it is not entirely beyond imagination, but there is no conclusive, or even really confident, evidence that human CO2 production is the primary driver of climate change. And scientists who claim that they have established a significant causal link between CO2 causing warming are generally overstating their data. I’ve seen lots of studies showing a strong correlation between CO2 and temperatures, but the conclusions they draw show that CO2 trails temperature changes by 2 to 10 years.

– As I said to Greg F, I don’t share your assumption that trying to mitigate global warming will be so expensive as to mean economic Armageddon. One of my co-bloggers (about a year or so ago) linked a study that showed that fully implementing the Kyoto protocol would have cost roughly the same amount as the Iraq War. Expensive? Yes. Enough to cripple the economy? I doubt it.
– It seems to me that you fall into the classic Libertarian trap of strongly preferring cure over prevention, even though prevention virtually always costs a mere fraction of trying to clean up or solve a problem after the fact.
– “the American economy has been responsible for creating more wealth and more prosperity for more people than anything else in the history of man’s relation to man.” Ugh. Srsly? You’re starting to sound like Sean Hannity. Keep it up, and I’ll start calling you Judd the Plumber. 🙂

Now, in response to your latest response, I still don’t think linear expansion is a safe assumption, even given your list of “unknown unknowns.” 🙂 The growth of the CO2 concentration has been steadily accelerating for as long as Mauna Loa has been tracking it. If you want to ignore or even reverse that trend, I’m afraid you’re going to need a better justification than a shrug and a “who knows what might happen.” If I were projecting US debt into the future, you wouldn’t allow me to do it linearly and justify it by saying “sooner or later people are going to stop lending us money and Congress will rein in spending” — you’d call me on that, and rightly so. We don’t get to just dismissively wave away half-century long (and longer) trends.

MadRocketScientist:

I guess it depends on what one sees as an “extraordinary claim.” To me, the claim that we can continue spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration without any untoward consequences whatsoever strikes me as pretty extraordinary. I’m not a Libertarian, but I don’t believe in free lunch, either.

And for what it’s worth, the “AGW crowd” does talk about all of those aspects of human activity. But CO2 is still clearly the biggest elephant in that room. (Why is deforestation relevant? Because it inhibits the environment’s ability to absorb the CO2 we emit. Why is modern agriculture relevant? Because it’s the primary driver of deforestation, and thus still ties into CO2 emissions. Why is other pollution relevant? Because it blocks sunlight and has historically mitigated the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations. And so on.)

Finally, you seem to be knocking down a bit of a straw man here. Nobody’s arguing that CO2 is the only driver of warming, or that human activity is the only thing that generates CO2. The argument is that CO2 is the primary driver of the current warming trend, and that human activity is the primary driver of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. And the numbers for that work out far better than any other explanation that has been proffered. That’s the bottom line here: if human-generated CO2 isn’t causing the current warming trend, then what is? And none of this vague, weasely “natural variations BS,” that’s not going to cut it. Not unless you can explain what’s driving those natural variations, and provide evidence to support it.

To me, it seems pretty straightforward: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We’re generating CO2 and a large-and-ever-growing rate, while simultaneously diminishing the environment’s ability to absorb all that CO2. Most of the time, when you see hoofprints, you’re looking for a horse, not a zebra.

Footnote: I didn’t lump you in with “global warming deniers,” I lumped you in with anthropogenic global warming deniers. Just because you were never one of the former doesn’t mean you’re not one of the latter. You proudly admit to being one of the latter, it seems.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

That is truly an extraordinary claim, that humans have been doing enough to significantly alter the climate more than natural processes can.

I call bullshit. That is not, nor has it ever been the claim. The claim, rather, is that human activity is exacerbating those natural processes. And frankly, the claim that human activity has a measurable and sometimes profound impact on the environment has been demonstrated enough times in other areas that it doesn’t seem extraordinary any more. (Though I suppose it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that you deny any human involvement in acid rain and ozone depletion, too.)
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

Your explanation makes sense, and shows that I was not, in fact, misunderstanding ‘model.’ Since you have conceded that your application of the term to the USHCN data (which is all from direct observation, and not modeled) is invalid, we no longer have a disagreement on that point.

And no, I’m not still delirious. I am, however, color blind, and that makes it very difficult for me to differentiate between the lines on the graph you linked. 🙂 But what my untrained eye sees isn’t anything of interest beginning at around 1900; rather it sees pretty serious deviations between roughly 1800 and 1900, after which things start to converge. (I also don’t see any evidence of a so-called “medieval warm period” on that graph, but that was somebody else’s argument, I believe.)

Anyway, the bottom line is that you’re still harping about the CRU (and, it seems, only the CRU), and I’m more or less ambivalent about it, because the case for AGW does not live or die on the validity of CRU’s outcomes. Throw the CRU baby out with the bath water, and the case for AGW is not substantially diminished. (USHCN data, all based on direct observation, shows a distinct and accelerating warming trend.) And please note that if the CRUs data is bad, the conclusion from that is that perhaps the planet isn’t warming — turning the answer to Q1 to “no” (or, at best “I dunno”), as you note above. That now puts you at odds with both Judd and MadRocketScientist, both of whom answered Yes to Q1 without hesitation. I’ll gladly let you and them duke it out on that point. 🙂
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

Another note on Barbie‘s linked graph: it’s based on the original Mann report, which had acknowledged problems, many of which were later corrected. Mann 1999 isn’t what you want. It’s Mann 2008 (Source PDF here).
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

“This will be less of a waste than the Iraq War!” isn’t exactly a rallying cry that gives me a lot of confidence. “You already set one big pile of money on fire so now it’s our turn!” is, well, not something I can subscribe to especially if the evidence supporting the claims are as flimsy as the ones for “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction”.

I put that bit about the wonders of capitalism in there so you’d have something to respond to. I was worried you might be at a loss without it. 😉

If you want to engage in a bit of sociology and assume that we’ll continue to accelerate the rate of CO2 production then I’m fine with that. The way I arrived at my initial statement it would be nearly two centuries before we doubled carbon dioxide concentrations is by plotting a linear regression though this decade’s data points, finding the best-fit line and then plugging and chugging to find the estimated year. Assuming I can operate my calculator correctly, that’s saying we’ll double the 2007 CO2 levels (and thus raise global temperatures by 2.1 degrees) in the year 2197.

I’ve gone back, take all the Mauna Loa CO2 data from its inception (1959 in my data set) and plotted those values vs. the year they were observed. As the graph rises more steeply towards the end (as you point out has been the trend) I plotted the best-fit exponential line through this scatter plot. Based off that I’ve found if we continue to accelerate carbon dioxide production at our current rate (and again, assuming I can operate a calculator correctly) instead of the year 2197, we’ll double the total atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2180. And I personally doubt we’ll be accelerating fossil fuel usage that much for that long in to the next century.

Not unless you can explain what’s driving those natural variations, and provide evidence to support it.

See my previous link. We are still on the upswing from a cold period. And there wasn’t much human created CO2 in the MWP.

The claim, rather, is that human activity is exacerbating those natural processes.

Now who’s moving goalposts? Maybe the climate scientists understand the reality of this, but that is certainly not how they are selling it. The term anthropogenic designates an effect or object resulting from human activity. AGW claims that humans are the primary driver of the recent change, rather then merely a contributing factor to a natural process.

And no, I don’t deny our involvement in Acid Rain or Ozone Depletion, nor do I deny our involvement in adding to the current warming, nor reject the idea that we seriously need to move to non-fossil fuel infrastructure. What I reject as overzealous fear-mongering is:

A) That the current warming will result in runaway heating (i.e. break the negative feedback that normally exists and impose a runaway positive feedback, that is quite an extraordinary claim), and

B) That the current warming will be as extraordinary & destructive as they claim. The only way it’ll be that destructive is if it happens faster then we can adapt (say going into fatal temperature ranges in 10-20 years, instead of the 100+ years I’ve seen projected). Humans have migrated across the planet in response to climate change many times. There is no reason we can’t do so again.

I wasn’t lurking, I haven’t been around. I just now read through this whole thread – well, I admit I skimmed parts – and I’m frankly disinclined to jump in because right now I’m in one of those moods where I am just too damn tired of responding to the same damn arguments another damn time.

So just two quick things and then I may not be back for this thread.

1. The business about ditched or “manipulated” data is crap. I’m assuming some people here know what is meant by “value-added data,” but for those who (quite obviously) don’t, it’s raw data that has been adjusted so that all the data meets the same standard – such as, for one obvious and simple example, making allowances for the fact that temperature data drawn from a site in the middle of a city will generally give you higher temps than a site at an airport outside that city, which in turn may well give you a higher figure than one in a nearby rural area away from a lot of pavement.

“Value added” means the same thing here as in economics: It is data that is more valuable, more useful, than the raw data.

And none of the raw data is gone: It is still at the observation sites from which it originated and they are the ones, not the CRU, who are responsible for keeping it. The CRU has a responsibility to keep the value-added data, the data actually used in any calculations or modeling, and it has kept that data.

2. SB is correct in principle when she says that if the data and the model disagree, it’s the model that wrong. That’s true – if you’re sure the data is correct and reliable. Let’s be sure to recall the satellite data from several years back that supposedly disproved global warming by showing a cooling of the troposphere. It turned out a few years later that the problem was the data: Because of changes in its orbit (for which no allowance had been made – the data was not “value-added”), the satellite was taking measurements at 5pm instead of noon as it had originally. When that was taken into account, the data matched the models.

The issue here is with tree ring data that diverges from temperature records since either about 1960 or 1980, depending on which set of data you’re talking about. And that does raise some legitimate question about the reconstruction of temperatures from before there were records.

However, before we get too eager to dump those reconstructions, some issues must be addressed. One important one is that tree ring data was not the only proxy used. If the tree ring data is unreliable, why did it tell much the same story as boreholes, ice cores, lake sediments, historical records, and the rest of the proxies? Why did all those proxies converge on generally the same conclusion? Are they all unreliable and unreliable in the same way?

And why would the tree ring data track with observed data for something like 80 to 100 years and then suddenly diverge? And if it is a problem with the models, why did one set of tree ring data diverge 20 years sooner (and more sharply) than another set?

If tree ring data was the only proxy used, the divergence problem could be a serious challenge to reconstructions of past temperatures. It’s not, so the divergence problem needs to be seen as a conundrum which might someday become a challenge to those reconstructions, depending on how study of the matter develops. But it isn’t now.
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..Catching up: global warming – the emails =-.

No goal posts moved. Show me where anyone has ever argued that humans are 100% responsible.

And you sure do like to harp on that Medieval Warm Period. I don’t think it’s the slam dunk you think it is. In truth, the MWP was (A) not all that warm; (B) not as warm as what we’re seeing today; and (C) very likely a regional warming pattern in the North Atlantic, rather than a global pattern.

As for the other pollution, it shouldn’t be new. It’s getting a lot of play in right-wing circles, as it suggests a possible geoengineering solution to the problem: “simply” distribute large quantities of aerosolized pollutants into the upper atmosphere, and this will reflect sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed and generate heat. It’s an insane idea, mind you, but that’s what’s being suggested, and it’s based on the (relatively) recent observation of the aerosolized pollutant effect. It’s been most recently and prominently suggested in Superfreakonomics, but they’re not the first to suggest it. Look up “global dimming” for more on this.

Finally, a partial mea culpa on modern agriculture.

P.S. “Trap heat?” That one mystifies me a little bit. If forests trapped heat, then wiping them out should be a net positive, shouldn’t it?

Judd:

I’m not arguing that the Iraq War wasn’t a colossal waste — of course it was. The point, however, is that it didn’t cripple the economy, or even come close to doing so. Further, unlike the Iraq War, climate change mitigation has tangible benefits, many of which can be easily justified without even discussing climate change (run of the mill pollution, it’s unsustainable, much/most of the fossil fuel comes from politically unstable parts of the world, etc.).

And I’m not wanting to “engage in sociology,” I just cry foul at changing observed trendlines without a rock-solid reason for doing so. That seems arbitrary and self-serving. Anyway, since you’ve done the math (and I assume you have better curve-fitting tools than I do, which is to say that I assume you have curve fitting tools), let’s see if we came up with anything like the same figures. For simplicity, I did January-January comparisons, ignoring the rest of each year’s data. I then calculated the year-over-year change in CO2 concentration. From that, I calculated a five-year moving average of that change. And from that what I came up with is that we roughly double the rate at which we increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration about every 36 years, give or take. I haven’t yet had time to extrapolate that out to see when we hit double the current concentration. Anyway, quite possibly a red herring, but a point of curiosity nonetheless.

Back to your main argument, the part I’m having a hard time with is your equations for how much effect on temperature an increase in CO2 concentration actually has. Where are those coming from, exactly? I’ve done some basic research (though not comprehensive by any means) and I’m not able to find matching formulas (or, indeed, any formulas at all). So a few corroborating sources there would be quite helpful. I’m not calling them into question; merely asking for attribution. I will say, however, that a little voice in the back of my head keeps whispering “he’s oversimplifying, and things ain’t that simple.” It also mutters something about “forcings.” 🙂
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

“And why would the tree ring data track with observed data for something like 80 to 100 years and then suddenly diverge? And if it is a problem with the models, why did one set of tree ring data diverge 20 years sooner (and more sharply) than another set?”

Because all models are flawed by virtue that are only models. And, as you said, we must be sure our data is of the highest quality in order for models to work the way they are supposed to do. With that, it is ludicrous for the WMO to not put their data in the pubic domain. As said on RealClimate, the WMO is not adhering to their own policy of granting access to academic studies with good integrity, and this is very harmful to the science and the scientists who want to do this research.

We can only check the correctness of our actual data. As for the correctness of the models, work still needs to be done – a lot of work. We have to deduce the most correct model for the earth’s temperature in terms of values that we can obtain from measurements without using the actual temperature data – a blind reading. This is going to be very difficult, but I believe it is possible.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..The Inbox {12.10.09}: Dr. Boyfriend sez =-.

By the bye, if you want to talk about MIT’s conclusions on methane, it might help to link to the spin-free version of the report, rather than the AGW-denier’s sloppy summation. And of course, they follow up on that report a year later. And guess what? The likely culprit in increased methane concentrations is warmer temperatures causing previously-frozen deposits to thaw and be released. In other words, positive feedback.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

To which you could have added “and they are only as good as their data.” Which is sort of my point here. You’ve got proxy data which has meshed acceptably well with data from other proxies and in addition to that has tracked well with direct observations for 80 to 100 years – and then quite suddenly doesn’t. Quite bluntly, in such an event my first instinct is not to question the model but to wonder if some external factor has affected the data set.

If later there is confidence that the answer is no, then there’s cause to question the model.

(Or, in this case, maybe not, since tree rings are not the only proxy. Even if you declared them completely unreliable as such, the others would remain. That would reduce your confidence in those temperature reconstructions, but would not undermine them.)
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..Catching up: global warming – the emails =-.

As a footnote (and coda, I hope) I just came across a passing reference to a period in the 17th century when again tree rings indicated temperatures considerably cooler than other sources. I haven’t found a source that shows that specifically, but if it’s so it suggests that, again, something else might be driving the divergence problem other than any problem with the models used to determine past temperatures.
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..Catching up: global warming – the emails =-.

You’re in luck. Unlike some other folks who do work on the climate I am more than happy to share both my data and the method I used to make my predictions.🙂 /snark

I never said there wouldn’t be some benefits from some of the policies advocated by the AGW scare crowd. As someone who breathes air I’m not exactly in favor or pollution. I’d love being able to tell all the Middle Eastern oil sheiks what they can go do with themselves. Those are good and noble goals and I support them. It’s the climate (pardon my use of the word) of fear that comes with the AGW movement that turns me off so much.

I asserted you were in engaging in sociology because I feel there’s a great deal of doubt that we’ll be able to continue to maintain our current level of acceleration in CO2 production. The debate was made pretty much meaningless though when I redid the calculations with your desired model and found out we were talking about 2197 vs. 2180. I honestly didn’t know there was that small of a variation until after you called in to question my use of a linear regression and I reanalyzed the data. If it’s that big a deal I’ll withdraw the argument and let 2180 stand.

As for my data on that point, I used the NOAA’s stated yearly mean values as observed at Mauna Loa. You can find it for yourself here

I find the yearly values preferable to the January-to-January thing you were doing because there’s a degree of month-to-month variation due to the variation of land mass and therefore growing season in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres which affects the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere throughout the year (something Gore actually touched on at the beginning of his film). I’m fairly sure the year-over-year data using only January won’t be too far off though.

What I did was took the Mauna Loa data, made a scatter plot with year on the x-axis and carbon dioxide concentration in ppm on the y, found the best-fit exponential line though those points (y=0.1004*e^0.0041x, if you’re interested) then put in double the 2007 concentration (767.42 ppm) for “y” and solved for “x”. I got 2180 and change. If my math is correct then that should be the year we’ve doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide if we continue to accelerate our output at the rate we’re currently accelerating.

The equations and formulas I presented are all things I derived myself yesterday using some basic first principles and three sources: my carbon dioxide data from 1959 to 2007 came from the link listed above for data from Mauna Loa, my CO2 data from 1880 to 1958 came from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Labs and can be found at

Despite my best efforts I’m not able to find the link to the temperature data on NASA’s website; I was able to locate a version of it in Excel form at the Earth Policy Center (hardly a conservative rag so I think they’re safe) and can be found here

From those three sources I generated a scatter plot with 128 data points for each year from 1880 to 2007 with CO2 concentration on the x-axis and mean global temperature on the y. I then calculated the best fit logarithmic plot through those point (as absorbance is related to the natural log of the concentration) and came up with y=3.2587ln(x)+268.38.

That’s how I did all of my analysis of the current data and arrived at the predicted numbers I presented yesterday night. If I’ve oversimplified something let me know and I’ll adjust as best I can.

MWP – look at those Ice Core plots and tell me the MWP was not significant. It was a whole lot warmer then than now.

Forests – Forests can store heat so that it is not re-radiating out of the forest. Go into a tropical jungle and it’s very warm, get above the canopy and the temp drops quite a bit. They also absorb water vapor which holds a lot of heat.

MIT – They admit that the methane release is due to warming, but don’t blame CO2 for it. Look back at the Ice Cores, the earth has been a lot warmer, which would have caused similar methane increases, and yet something natural acted to bring the temps back down.

Again, look at the ice core data, nature swings the temp around on us A LOT!

It will take me some time to chew on that data, and I’m coming into a very busy weekend. But I will look at it.

MadRocketScientists:

I thought the warming we were talking about was mean surface temperatures, not atmospheric temperatures, so I think the forest objection stands.

Also, on what planet does “primarily” mean the same thing as “exclusively?”

Regarding the Medieval Warming Period, insisting on citing as fact something that has been repeatedly and thoroughlydebunked (some of them snarkier than otherones) isn’t the best example of what I’d call good-faith argumentation. Further, insisting that one looks at just one proxy data set, while ignoring all others, doesn’t sound like sound science either. “Look at the Northern Hemisphere Ice Cores, dude!” Umm, no, look at ALL of the data, from the WHOLE planet. To overemphasize one set of data that happens to dovetail nicely with one’s preferred conclusion, while ignoring all others, is what we call cherry-picking. And in any case, even the ice core data shows the so-called MWP to be a regional phenomenon rather than a global one.

But setting that aside, just because temperatures have fluctuated in the past doesn’t mean that current changes are happening for the same reasons, especially not when there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that certain new factors are, in fact, driving current changes. From where I sit, your argument boils down to “since people die of natural causes all the time, there’s no such thing as homicide!” Not exactly compelling.

The MIT paper doesn’t explicitly blame CO2 for the warming, but it doesn’t address the cause of the warming one way or the other. It doesn’t repudiate the CW that CO2 is responsible for current warming trends. Absent that, it’s a gross overstatement to suggest that their findings somehow disprove CO2’s role, or humankind’s role in increasing the CO2 concentrations.

I’m a lot like a cockroach in that I’m very hard to get rid of so I’ll be here eagerly anticipating your return.

Speaking of things disappearing, can someone check to see if Dan’s okay? Last I saw he was reading that longer post of mine and he hasn’t been heard from since. Despite the fact he’s a dirty, rotten lefty he seemed like a good guy. (And Dan, if you are out there, I as always meant that in the nicest possible way.😉 )

tgrisch: Damn you, now I have to go read some papers. Unfortunately, this weekend I have to help get two new airliners prepped and ready for test flights, so I won’t have time to hunt down actual papers (I miss working for a University, this was so much easier back then) until after we are done with that.

“What you’re describing, then, is a carbon sink, which gets back to my original point in that thread with MRS — it’s primarily about the CO2.”

*foreheadSMACK*

T, my explanation IS about CO2, even if you want to think of it as a carbon sink; clearly I’m not explaining the chemistry very well. CO2 is *converted* to O2 via photosynthesis. I think you’re looking at it as CO2 minus the C = O2. Even if you want to look at it like that, the point is that at the end, you do not have CO2. It’s not entirely wrong to see it as a carbon sink, you still don’t end up with CO2; the trees, in essence, take the C of the CO2, and use photosynthesis to combine it with H20 in such a way that it results in C6H12O6 (glucose). The balanced reaction is 6 CO2 + 6 H2O = C6H12O6 + 6 O2. CO2 goes in, O2 comes out. Does this make sense? Even if it is a carbon sink, it is still about CO2 dissappearing.

That’s how chemistry works. After a chemical reaction, the mass and the energy has been transformed into a different form with different chemical properties from what went in as reactants. Just because you still have C’s and O’s in the equation doesn’t mean you have CO2, and that is because the bonds have been rearranged to create a different molecule, and that molecule doesn’t spontaneously decompose to CO2.
.-= SB´s last blog ..The Inbox {12.10.09}: Dr. Boyfriend sez =-.

“Quite bluntly, in such an event my first instinct is not to question the model but to wonder if some external factor has affected the data set.”

LarryE – this is absolutely true. But you also have to finish it out by making sure that, after you are positive your data is of the highest quality, you are still using a correct model. Holyshit, I think we’re eye to eye on this. When the data is changed, the final check is to feed it back into the program as the input, to see what the output looks like with the new data, do you disagree?
.-= SB´s last blog ..The Inbox {12.10.09}: Dr. Boyfriend sez =-.

I don’t know why you’re arguing with me when I agree with you on this point! Perhaps you should go back and re-read the context of what MRS and I were discussing to see our disagreement. MRS said that global warming wasn’t just about CO2 emissions it was also about lots of other things, deforestation being one of them. I countered that the primary reason deforestation is important here is because forests help mitigate the effects of our CO2 emissions by absorbing atmospheric CO2 (yes, via photosynthesis which turns water and CO2 into sugar and leaves O2 as a waste product). So I wasn’t arguing with you, I was arguing with him (I assume he’s a him, but don’t know that for sure).

So yes, a carbon sink is an accurate way to view it, even though it’s not as simple as CO2 – C = O2. All that background chemistry is irrelevant. What’s important is that more acres of forest = better ability for the environment to absorb CO2, while fewer acres = diminished ability. At the end of the day, it’s all (or mostly) about the CO2. MRS‘ proffered explanation about trapping heat at the surface while cooling the canopy is, as far as I can discern, nonsense (or, at best, irrelevant here).
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

I read about this years ago, and my time is tight, so I apologize for not having a paper to link to.

Yes, it is about the CO2, but it’s also about heat. IIRC, they way it works is like this. Canopied forests are hot & humid. Water has a very high heat capacity (4186 J/(kg·K)) vs CO2 (which is about 840 J/(kgK)). Therefore, the humid air, copious plants, and moist ground can hold a lot of heat. If it is holding the heat, it is not radiating it out (heat sink). The forest canopy acts as a massive insulator preventing the heat from escaping as well as keeping the moisture locked in (dense forests are not know for their breezes). Canopied forests usually maintain a very constant temperature day & night at ground level, while it is rather cool above the canopy.

Compare to a desert found at a similar latitude and altitude. No plant life or canopy to trap the moisture, no moisture to trap the heat, it gets hot in the day, and then radiates all that heat right back out at night.

Watched the Hannity thing and I almost gagged myself with a spoon. That was so syrupy I think I might now be diabetic.

Just to weigh in and referee what might be a semantics issue with you and Barbie, “carbon sink” has a specific meaning. A “carbon sink” is something that merely traps carbon dioxide and holds it as carbon dioxide. The CO2 is unchanged and just waiting to escape to bring its pestilence back unto the land; in that way carbon dioxide held in a sink is very much like Sauron, Voldemort or Mike Huckabee. Forests don’t really count as carbon sinks because rather than simply binding the CO2 it consumes it and converts it to something else, specifically oxygen gas (as Barbie correctly pointed out). Forests can absorb heat as well but that’s completely independent of the manner in which they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

If I’m understanding you correctly, then, what you’re effectively saying is that in addition to converting CO2 to O2, forests also effectively have the opposite effect as the urban “heat island” effect. That sounds right, actually. Mea culpa. And why I’m glad I used the weasel word and said “primarily” about the CO2 rather than “entirely” about it. 🙂 That said, I’m still not clear on whether these effects have any global significance, or if they merely result in localized heating and cooling. At the end of the day, the heat has to go somewhere. Conservation of energy and all that.

Judd:

My understanding (and I confirmed it on Wikipedia, so it must be true!) is that the term “carbon sink” can be used to mean either. It’s not strictly something that traps CO2. It’s something that traps carbon. Whether it’s in an altered or unaltered state is irrelevant.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Cats vs. Dogs =-.

That’s news to me then and far be it for me to question Wikipedia. I’ve only ever come across the term carbon sink use to describe things that trap carbon dioxide without any subsequent chemical reaction but if the broader definition is what’s being used commonly now then I guess that’s the way it’s being used. My knowledge of them comes mainly from a seminar some years ago so it’s a little rusty to start with and it could just be that the speaker I heard either didn’t make it clear or I just wasn’t paying close enough attention.

I’ll have to defer to you on that. Since, as I stated above, carbon dioxide isn’t a big deal I’ve not made an effort to keep up with whatever work is being done in that area and so I admit I might not be up to date on contemporary terminology. I do clearly remember (and this would have been in 2002) some academic at a talk I attended referring to a carbon sequestration system she was proposing as a “carbon sink” because it was the first time I’d heard the term. Looking back at it now the idea was shoddy enough that the speaker might not have known all of what they were talking about.

T,
Apparently, I misinterpreted your tone, but also the carbon sink thing to me means what Judd said above. Hench the chemistry lesson. Wasn’t trying to be pedantic, just thought there was a hole that needed to be filled in. Seems we’re seeing eye to eye on this.

Just. One. More. Little. Thing…

“Whether it’s in an altered or unaltered state is irrelevant.”

Soooooooo not true! (and pssst! Don’t say things like that to chemists, it makes you sound like a dumbass to us😉 )

nice conversation. Can’t believe LarryE and I remained civil AND practically found ourselves in some kind of agreement! I think it’s just about safe for me to peace out, now.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..The Inbox {12.10.09}: Dr. Boyfriend sez =-.

Allow me to be more precise: Whether the carbon stays part of a CO2 molecule or reacts with other molecules to form new molecules is irrelevant to whether or not the term “carbon sink” can correctly be applied. All that matters is that more carbon atoms enter the system than leave the system. I’ve googled all over the place, and can’t find a single reference, technical or otherwise, to a definition that stipulates that the CO2 must remain CO2 in order for something to accurately be considered a “carbon sink.” Oceans, plants, and soil are all commonly listed as examples of natural carbon sinks, and in at least two of those three examples, we’re not talking about sequestered CO2 gas.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Oh, Jesus Christ! =-.

While I crunch numbers, a non-science-y question for you: To what extent do you think the climatologists who believe man-made CO2 is largely responsible for current global warming trends are misguided and/or mistaken, versus deliberately distorting the facts?

I ask this because in my experience, most of those I’ve encountered who reject the role of man-made CO2 are either simply ignorant of the subject (generally laypeople), or decidedly fall into the latter category, continuing to parrot talking points that have long since been debunked and/or discredited. (You’re the happy exception in this case.) So I was wondering where you stand on people in general, and scientists in particular, who still ascribe to the prevailing view.

As an aside, I suspect that if we were ever to get together for adult beverages, it would get ugly. In a good way.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Oh, Jesus Christ! =-.

By and large I think most of the scientists who are warning of a potential catastrophe if we don’t seriously curtail our carbon dioxide emissions are misguided. There might be a few nefarious sorts out there who “know better” and are engaged in deliberate distortions but I think (or at least I hope) I can count them with just my fingers.

Most of my fellow scientists whom I’ve discussed the issue with and who don’t agree with me actually have about the same reaction to my arguments that you did. “This calls some things into serious question so it can’t be right but I don’t see the damn flaw that must be here someplace.” Honestly, most of the scientists that I’ve really sat down with haven’t examined the issue for themselves; they’re not climatologists so they defer to the people in that field and they largely subscribe to the issue. As for the climatologists themselves, I can’t say. I’ve not actually ever had the opportunity to sit down with one and discuss the issue. In the absence of that I hesitate to ascribe malice to their actions.

Not to get too political but a majority of scientists are liberals and the idea of AGW has a very strong appeal to that ideology. If something appeals to our instincts I think we’re more likely to accept it at face value. I can’t corroborate that of course but to me at least it explains how the “consensus” has formed around the issue. Scientists are also people, too, so we’re not immune from the herd mentality; if everyone else thinks it then I should to because if I don’t all my colleagues will think I’m an idiot.

What really bugs me about the AGW scaremongers though is that if they’re wrong they’ll have done a lot of harm to science’s reputation amongst the general public, particularly as it relates to warnings of impending doom. If they’re eventually shown to be wrong and then somewhere down the road mankind really does find a way to screw this planet and create the need for us to radically alter our lifestyles post haste that when we go to sound the warning bells that we’ll get a “We’ve heard this before, Chicken Little. Go cry ‘wolf’ to somebody else,” from the general public and then we will be really fucked.

…Forests act as a heat sink; the process of photosynthesis actually makes the atmosphere cooler as the tree “breathes.” Forests also trap moisture and increase humidity; the trees aspire, or give off, water as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Without the forests creating a reserve of moisture and water, this water evaporates and becomes useless to any animals.

It’s not my original source, but it’s the best I can do on short notice. It also jives with I know of thermodynamics (which is a lot, but I apply it to gas turbines, no ecologies).

“Allow me to be more precise: Whether the carbon stays part of a CO2 molecule or reacts with other molecules to form new molecules is irrelevant to whether or not the term “carbon sink” can correctly be applied. All that matters is that more carbon atoms enter the system than leave the system. I’ve googled all over the place, and can’t find a single reference, technical or otherwise, to a definition that stipulates that the CO2 must remain CO2 in order for something to accurately be considered a “carbon sink.” Oceans, plants, and soil are all commonly listed as examples of natural carbon sinks, and in at least two of those three examples, we’re not talking about sequestered CO2 gas.”

Oh, ok. In that case, I don’t care. Why the hell were we even…………never mind.

Judd, I suspect you’ll be making a trip to Austin at some point before I graduate and Alex and I find jobs – roughly summer 2011.

My argument is this: You have a set of data (tree rings) that have been used as a proxy to do reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium. Those reconstructions have tracked reasonably well (quite well given the unavoidable uncertainties) with those developed with other proxies and quite well with actual observed temperatures. Suddenly, they diverge from observed temps. Given the record, my first instinct is to think something is forcing the data set – especially since there have been times in the past (in addition to that 17th century mention) when tree rings have indicated considerably cooler temps than other proxies.

If after examination you believe the data is sound, that is, the divergence is not the effect of some unaccounted-for influence that has driven the data in a certain direction, you re-run the model with the new data and see how it compares to observations.

Here’s where a difference might remain: You not only need to compare this output with the old tree ring output but with the output from the other proxies. If running the model with the new tree ring data produces results at variance with observations but the other proxies continue to show results in accord with observations, then it’s not the model that’s bad, it’s the usefulness of tree ring data as a proxy – the alternative being that all the proxies are invalid but for some reason only the tree rings show the divergence.

At that point you can do one of two things: You can develop a standard correction such that the tree rings are still useful (assuming that’s possible) or throw out that data entirely.

The thing to bear in mind at the end of all this is that even if the tree ring data was thrown out, the other proxies still tell the same story of the current worldwide temperature being unprecedented in at least several hundred years if not longer. Which is why I said that ditching the tree ring data would reduce confidence in those reconstructions of past temperatures (since they’d be based on one less data set), but wouldn’t undermine them.
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..Catching up: global warming – the news =-.

As for where I went, there were a bunch of long posts, and frankly I became too lazy to read it all.

Which is unfortunate, since I missed the direct response SM gave.

(By the way, I certainly get the humor of “Riff Raff”, but it always makes me feel a little bad for going bald, so I’d prefer it to not be used. No rational objection, just asking a favor.)

SM,

Golly gee, Dan M, I almost didn’t reply. I mean you linked to a tee-shirt. I’m not sure I can top that. Let me try.

Perhaps you need the relevance explained? When you ask questions like “What color is the sky in your world?”, you’ll get giving mocking replies about how conventional answers, like “blue” really aren’t all that informative.

As TG pointed out, CRU was obliged to not release the data it deleted. I haven’t seen any claims substantiated claims that original data was deleted.

I’ll actually agree that trying to dodge FOIA, and not releasing their algorithms is quite objectionable. It took me a while to hear that they were dodging FOIA from anybody who wasn’t also claiming that they were “hiding the decline” in global temperatures, so I had dismissed that pending sanity.

Just FYI, as I understand it, the CRU did dump some older raw data in the course of a move either to new offices or a new computer system (or both, memory fails on the point). They kept all the “value-added” data, the corrected data used in the actual calculations and modeling, which is what they were obliged to keep.

The raw data still exists at the various observation stations that produced it (which are the places actually obligated to keep it).
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..Catching up: global warming – the news =-.

Thanks, LarryE, what you describe is what I was referring to. I wouldn’t call it deleting original data when you don’t retain copies of the normative sources, so perhaps a large part of this discussion is muddled with conflicting usage.

The number crunching has gone absolutely nowhere. My house is currently ripped apart, and I’ve spent perhaps 20 minutes on the computer over the last 2.5 days. You’ll be lucky if I get to it before the holidays, actually, because I’m going to be out of town about 10 out of the next 14 days, and when I’m here, I’m patching holes.

Any way, tipping points aren’t my only bullet. There’s also the issue of forcings. Note, for example, way upthread where I link to an MIT story where a certain degree of warming starts releasing sequestered methane, thus starting a positive feedback loop. (I suppose one could describe that as a tipping point, but I view that to be more of a point of no return than just a positive feedback loop.)

But yes, I do still intend to check your math. It just may be a while before I get to it.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Christmas Song of the Day =-.

If the “mission” is giving a non-scientist a homework assignment, fair enough. 🙂

By the way, the house projects were largely unexpected. A simple wallpaper removal project snowballed into tearing three rooms down to the studs and redrywalling them, and while we’re there we may as well run some cable, replace some electrical, add some outlets, and generally rewire stuff.

Rather than keep you in too much suspense over the holidays, I’d figure I’d let you know what I’ve got so far, thus throwing some homework back into your court. Essentially, your arithmetic is more or less sound, but the assumptions you’re starting from (your “givens”) are flawed and too simplistic. To wit:

1. Your back-of-the-envelope calculations to figure out the “worst-case” scenario for the climate’s reaction to a doubling of CO2 are too simplistic, and rather than overestimating the impact of CO2, they actually underestimate it by a factor of 1.39.
2. Our modeling of the expected growth of CO2 concentration was also too simplistic. We were using the past concentrations of CO2 as though they are predictive of future results, when in truth it’s not that simple. Rather than modeling off of the past concentration of CO2, we need to be modeling off of the generation of CO2; more importantly, we need to be modeling off of per capita CO2 output, and then factor in projected population growth. India and China are two grand examples of why these adjustments need to be made — their emergence is a very recent development, and causes two problems, because more and more of their populations will become heavier carbon users, and their populations are still growing. Given that roughly one-third of the world’s population lives in those two countries, that’s a pretty big deal. (I haven’t yet worked out those numbers — that’s a lot to gather and plot.) As a starting point, however, China is already the world’s largest overall emitter of CO2 (though not per-capita — that’s still us), and is expected to more than double its carbon emissions in just the next two decades.
3. Opposite the emissions side is the absorption side. As you point out in your initial comment on the matter, it’s a well-established fact that as the planet warms, the environment’s ability to absorb CO2 is diminished. Trees, grasslands, and oceans become less efficient at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Couple that with the removal of forests and open grasslands for crops and livestock, and you’ve got a double-whammy: as we’re putting more and more CO2 into the environment, we’re diminishing the environment’s ability to deal with CO2 on two fronts.
4. In general, the aforementioned failure to recognize forcings, and the cascading effects of changes in a complex system.

So basically, we have three broad problems with your logic: it’s too simplistic, it significantly underestimates the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, and it substantially underestimates the projected growth of CO2 emissions (and thus, projected concentration).

That should give you some meat to start with. 🙂 Enjoy your pagan tree worshipping rituals, or whatever it is you do over the winter solstice. 😉
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Oh, Jesus Christ! =-.

Festivus pole, the airing of grievences, followed by feats of strength, anyone? To add my personal, jew-ess touch, I think gambling by way of games of dreidel – but with cash rather than peanuts and raisings and chocolate, would be a fantastic cap to the festivus activities.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..The Inbox {12.10.09}: Dr. Boyfriend sez =-.

This is old but I saw it again recently. It’s a good example of how the Earth can re-adjust the climate if a positive feedback loop does occur. And no, I don’t think this means, “Hey, it’s OK, we are in the clear.”

One thing that has occured to me wrt to all the climate debate is that I really do feel that the Climate Researchers (or journalists, or politicians) are overselling the crisis. Yes, I do think that their projections are far too aggressive, but be that as it may, I think the big problem is not so much the content of the message as it is the tone.

You’d think after watching GWB get beaten about the head & neck over his administrations fear-mongering that others would see that fear only gets you so far.

Of course, the media still seems to be able to sell the latest crisis on the evening news every week, so maybe I’m wrong.

Just something to throw into your mix (and no, I haven’t crunched the numbers, I’m afraid there are other numbers that concern me more these days):

According to a new study, published in the November 25 Geophysical Research Letters, “[c]oherence between interannual fluctuations in global-average temperature and atmospheric CO2 has changed over time. Since 1979, at Mauna Loa and other observation sites, interannual coherence exhibits a 90° phase lag that suggests a direct correlation between temperatures and the time-derivative of CO2. The coherence transition can be explained if the response time of CO2 to a global temperature fluctuation has lengthened from 6 months to at least 15 months.”

Put another way, it indicates that the environment is not taking up released CO2 as fast as it used to. In an email, the author suggests that the cause could well be that the oceans are reaching their limits as carbon sinks. Which would be very bad.

MRS –

There is one climatologist very concerned about global warming who agrees with you about the “oversold” point. (I can’t recall his name just now and I’m too lazy to hunt it down.) The deniers have tried to pull him into their camp based on that, but that’s wrong: His argument is that he’s worried that if the effects of global warming prove to be “only” very bad as opposed to a complete catastrophe, people will throw up their hands and say “oh, well, in that case, the hell with it” and do nothing – in which case it could become a catastrophe after all.
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..A catching up addendum – privacy/secrecy =-.

Also, LarryE‘s comment brings to the fore a couple of issues that I had failed to mention. First and foremost, that the impact of an increase in atmospheric CO2 is not immediate. There’s a lag there, such that plotting 2007’s CO2 concentration against 2007’s global mean temperature is apt to be misleading. Second, and not directly related to global warming, but absolutely related to CO2 output, is the far-less-publicized but potentially very serious issue of ocean acidification. Not to mention, of course, the forcing effect that LarryE mentioned, which is GW-related.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Smart Phone Bleg =-.

My worry exactly. I think people are getting exhausted with all the fear they are being shoveled, be it terrorism, crime, toxins, health, climate, corruption, scams, etc. I think a lot of people are already past the numb stage and are getting angry with those selling the fear (I’ve seen a lot of studies showing a sharp decline in the public trust of authority).

BTW, Today is (weather permitting), the first flight of the new Boeing 787. Everyone cross your fingers for a safe flight (I’ll be too busy snapping pics at the edge of the runway).

I actually had to get some work done yesterday and today is more of the same. I saw I had something directed at me but I haven’t even had the chance to read it yet. I’ll try to have a response for you late this evening.

It’s difficult to find the proper level of alarm for long-term problems like this one, especially in this case, where waiting to take mitigating action has the effect of making the worse scenarios more likely.

Imagine, if you will, someone in the 80’s or 90’s warning that if we continue down this path of financial deregulation, we’ll wind up with a major meltdown that will lead us to the brink of a second great depression. They’d sound pretty alarmist, too.
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Smart Phone Bleg =-.

My back-of-the-envelope calculation wasn’t intended to be anything substantive. Really I was just attempting to provide a very rough analysis without the benefit of curve-fitting software. It was overly simplistic because it was designed that way. The 17 page draft you cited will take me some time to comb through but if it’s relevant I’ll try to do so in the next few days.

If your goal is to model the generation of carbon dioxide by man you’re getting into a very murky area. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly in the past independent of human activity. Granted a significant portion of the current increase is due to human activity but is all of it? How can you conclusively determine the answer to that question? There is many times more carbon dioxide in the oceans than in the atmosphere and, as rising temperatures makes all that CO2 less soluble, we’d be wrong to assume all recent increases we’ve seen are strictly due to man (and, as a side note, this also explains the phenomenon observed in that paper Larry cited.) so how much is because of our burning fossil fuels and how much is natural? The modeling I did assumed everything was due to man so what would a more accurate model do to the numbers I’ve spat out so far? Moreso, any attempt to make a truly accurate predictive model will be exceedingly difficult. Said model would have to be very dynamic and take in to account some of the sociological factors we talked about before. How fast which alternative energies hit the mainstream will affect the model and are impossible to predict. If the United States gets over its ignorant paranoid fear of the word “nuclear” and we can stop doing stupid things like what Mario the Pius did in New York a couple decades ago then that will affect the model. Even if you choose to ignore that, I’ve been told the earth does not have the resources to support a Chinese and Indian middle class like what exists in the West now. If that’s true then that burns the whole shithouse down to the ground as far as predicting per capita output.

As the planet warms the ability to absorb carbon dioxide diminishes but that being a problem is predicated on the assumption the carbon dioxide itself is a significant problem. Sure there’s less carbon dioxide in the oceans but, given that we’ve been this warm in the past and it didn’t trigger a feedback loop then (warmer planet causes CO2 dissolved in the ocean to become less soluble which leads to a warmer planet which causes CO2 to become less soluble ad infinitum ) it’s not likely to cause a feedback loop now. The clearing away of grasslands and forests could potentially present an issue but the trouble then is that those areas where deforestation is a major concern are outside the jurisdiction of the United States and Western Europe. We’ll also then be confronted with the issue of what to tell a family in sub-Saharan Africa who wants to clear a plot of land to grow food so they don’t starve to death.

What exactly is it about forcings that you would like recognized?

To summarize: a portion of my logic was simplistic by design, the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide is a core issue and I fail to see exactly how I’ve underestimated it, and projecting growth of carbon emissions is a very uncertain thing I have a tough time seeing anyone do with a great deal of accuracy.

I’m not really a pagan. I know a couple pagans and they won’t have me (imagine that!). I spend my late Decembers generally trying to avoid the hordes in the malls, making every earthly effort to not hear another note of seasonal music (my iPod pays for itself almost every day) and sardonically dealing out history lessons to Christians who get a bit too high-and-mighty; I’m quiet and harmless until I’m provoked at which point I start shattering worldviews. Seeing as how we have no earthly idea on what day Jesus was born, hey, pick one and go for it. If nothing else I do appreciate a day out of the lab on which I eat well.

BTW T, you have my sympathies on the remodel project. Been there, done that, never again.

On the plus side though you doing this now may *actually* save or create jobs. I suggest applying for a government grant immediately. Given the scrutiny such projects have been under lately you’ll probably have government bureaucrats tripping over themselves to cut you a check just so they have something concrete to point to.

Anyway, I’m wondering why presuming that India and China will continue on their current path counts as “Speculationland,” but assuming that they’ll magically stop is, like, totally reasonable, MAAAAN!

I’m also guessing that, as a scientist, you’ve encountered other areas where simplistic, back-of-the-envelope calculations turned out not to be that representative of the real world when actually applied, so I’m curious as to why you’re so convinced that this case is different — that the back-of-the-envelope stuff must hold.

If your goal is to model the generation of carbon dioxide by man you’re getting into a very murky area. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has fluctuated wildly in the past independent of human activity. Granted a significant portion of the current increase is due to human activity but is all of it?

Umm, since when has “all of it” been a necessary standard. Please step away from the goal posts. Actually, put them back where you found them, and then step away. 🙂

More seriously, though, that’s a math problem, and you’re a math guy. I would think it should be pretty straightforward to (1) calculate how much CO2 humans put into the atmosphere in a given year from fossil fuel use; (2) calculate how much more CO2 was in the atmosphere that year as compared to the year before; and (3) compare those two numbers. It doesn’t seem that murky at all. If you want to be robust, do five-year averages for both. (And bear in mind, that doesn’t take into account the fact that while we’re pouring millions of tons of CO2 into the air, we’re also taking away natural carbon sinks [use my definition here].)

As the planet warms the ability to absorb carbon dioxide diminishes but that being a problem is predicated on the assumption the carbon dioxide itself is a significant problem.

The CW among scientists is that it is, and you haven’t really demonstrated that it isn’t.

Sure there’s less carbon dioxide in the oceans but, given that we’ve been this warm in the past and it didn’t trigger a feedback loop then … it’s not likely to cause a feedback loop now.

I’m pretty tired of this argument. It doesn’t even survive the most basic scrutiny. What was different when we were this warm in the past? You have to go back about 12,000 years to the last time we were this warm, and 1 degree C will put us at our warmest in 1.35 million years. I don’t think a past warm period that predates the industrial revolution by some 12 centuries means we get to ignore what’s happened from the industrial revolution moving forward.

What do I want you to recognize about forcings? The fact that although CO2 is the main driver of the current warming trend, you can’t simplistically look at just CO2 when calculating the anticipated effects. CO2-driven warming triggers other events which cause still more warming (see, for example, the sequestered methane links listed above).

Summation: You’re not convinced that CO2 is a significant problem, but more importantly, you don’t seem open to being convinced that it is. It seems to me that anything short of someone finding an arithmetic error in your back-of-the-envelope calculations will be met with a shrug.

You complain that it’s a complicated problem. Of course it is! Does that absolve us of any responsibility to try to solve it? I argue, no. (Now, libertarians, in my experience, generally argue that we shouldn’t try to solve problems. They don’t say it in so many words, but their reasoning almost always tends to prefer a pound of cure over an ounce of prevention, and that laissez-faire isn’t just for the economy.)

Look, even if we set aside whether man is fully/partially/not at all responsible for current warming, the fact remains that the current warming trend is a big problem. Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, and if that doesn’t seem like a big deal to you, allow me to remind you that they’re where the overwhelming majority of our fresh water comes from. And those of you who live out west *cough* in the middle of a desert *cough* are even more sensitive to such changes than people elsewhere. (And note, here, that the planet doesn’t have to warm any further for the glaciers to continue to disappear.)

As difficult as it might be to find a way to mitigate that warming, how difficult will it be to find a way to provide fresh water to 7+ billion people when natural supplies start drying up?
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Smart Phone Bleg =-.

I hope to make my final addition to this whole thread, particularly since what I said last was supposed to be a sort of passing comment to throw into the exchange between J. and T. But apparently a bit of explanation is in order.

this also explains the phenomenon observed in that paper Larry cited

Um, no it doesn’t. As the oceans warm, they can hold less CO2, that is true. It’s also, if my understanding is correct, a pretty straightforward calculation as to the relationship between the two. The concern here is not that the oceans might be able to hold less CO2 as they warm, but that the increased lag time may indicate that they are now already saturated and can hold no more – which would mean one of the biggest carbon sinks will no longer function. Which would be, let’s call it, a very bad thing.

And related to “how much” of recent warming is due to “Man” (What, did the ’60s and ’70s never happen?) a thought: If the human contribution to warming was sufficient to bring the warming of the oceans to the point they can no longer act as carbon sinks so that any natural releases of CO2 remained in the atmosphere, generating additional warming, is all that additional warming due to human activity? I’d say yes – because without that activity, those natural releases would have been balanced by a natural uptake.
.-= LarryE´s last blog ..A catching up addendum – privacy/secrecy =-.

I was actually expecting you to jump on “Mission Accomplished” with a bit more gusto than you have. 🙂

I’m sure India and China both want to continue their current growth and that the West wants to maintain their lifestyle. The thing is the West grew at the rate it did in part because energy was cheap and plentiful; it’s getting less cheap these days. I don’t hold that it’s a safe assumption the rate of CO2 generation can be maintained, in particular on a per capita basis.

I think I might have misunderstood you before. Were you poo-pooing all the math I did or just the very first bit where I randomly selected two years worth of data and made some very rough projections?

If I’m hanging out near any goalposts it’s just to make sure nobody tries to monkey with them while I’m off sciencing around the lab during the day.

“All of it” isn’t a necessary standard by any means. If you’re going to try to make an accurate model for the projected amount of carbon dioxide mankind will dump in to the atmosphere based off year-to-year changes we need to have some idea of how much of the change is due to humankind and how much is due to natural fluctuations. This objection could just be due to a gap in my knowledge. I can balance hydrocarbon combustion reactions all day long but do we know for sure the exact quantities of materials that enter the ecosystem from the consumption of carbon-based fuels?

The burden of proof does not rest on me to prove carbon dioxide is not a problem. I have said I have not seen sufficient evidence to persuade me that it is a threat. If the CW is that strong and irrefutable then I should be easy to convince.

Paleoclimatology isn’t my strong point. It will take me some time to critically read some of what you’ve linked to and the references therein. I will respond to it when I’ve had a chance to digest all of that.

I know it’s more than just CO2. Every time any mammal farts it’s bad. Every time a dentist takes a wussy (such as myself) and hooks them up to the nitrous oxide to make their visit a little less traumatic, it’s even worse. And whenever someone inhales a balloon full of sulfur hexafluoride to make themselves do a better impression of the Governator it’s the equivalent of them taking a giant dump on Mother Nature’s front lawn. Hell, if you balance the reaction for the combustion of a single molecule of octane you get eight carbon dioxide molecules and nine of water and water’s a far better infrared absorber than is CO2 (which is why the hydrogen car makes me giggle, but that another issue). Those variables add complexity though and doing that and doing it correctly is something its beyond my ability to model with even the slightest semblance of accuracy given the tools I have available to me. I wasn’t ducking the issue so much as trying to work within my means.

Your straw man about libertarians not wanting to solve problems will pass without further comment.

Which desert dwellers are we worried about?

If you want to set aside whether or not humankind if fully/partially/not at all responsible for the current warming trend then consensus is more attainable. It is not difficult to imagine problems if warming were to continue unabated. Seeing as how I live here and hopefully will continue to for a few more decades yet I’ve got a great personal interest in the planet remaining habitable. Even if we were to agree to set aside blame, you make it sound like we’ve already dug ourselves a hole from which there’s no escape. What do you propose we do?

The libertarian-non-problem-solving remark wasn’t aimed specifically at you. It’s just been my experience when discussing the problem with other self-described libertarians. Essentially, if the solution involves requiring anyone to do anything, or, heaven forbid, taxing something, they’re out.

The problem with the increased agreement if we set aside “blame” is that it doesn’t last very long. Start from the premise that the planet is warming, and that warming is bad for humanity in the mid-to-long term. From there, the question becomes “what can we do about it?” And before you can answer that question, you have to figure out why it’s warming. And *poof*, we’re right back where we started.

Because when you start looking for the “why,” the obvious place to start is to figure out what’s changed. When you see that the climate fluctuated within a certain range for literally centuries, and then suddenly started an upward trend within the last century, that’s where you look for what relevant changes may have taken place. And those changes are pretty obvious: a human population boom (more than 2.6 times what it was 60 years ago), combined with a massive expansion of fossil fuel use. It’s not a perfect explanation, but it’s by far and away the best one we have; nothing else even comes close.

Growth in CO2 emissions: If you’re going to argue that you expect us to deviate from current unsustainable growth trends (which I agree are ultimately unsustainable), that’s fine, but that still doesn’t allow you to just presume that past growth is an accurate or pessimistic indicator of future growth. Based on the remaining amounts of coal and oil, at what point do you presume the price of fossil fuels will become greater than that of non-carbon-based renewable energy? And why should I let you get away with assuming that magic technology to replace carbon-based fuels will suddenly appear and save the day? 🙂

Desert dwellers: I thought you were out in Phoenix or Tempe or somewhere thereabouts. Sorry if that’s a mistaken impression.

Hydrogen cars: Believe it or not, I’ve had the same thought. It’s a matter of whether the by-product takes the form of water vapor or just plain water. If the latter, no problem (because you’re getting the hydrogen from water in the first place anyway); if the former, big problem.

do we know for sure the exact quantities of materials that enter the ecosystem from the consumption of carbon-based fuels?

Just as “all of it” isn’t the necessary standard, “exact quantities” isn’t either. A rough estimate does the trick quite nicely for our purposes. We’re not exactly talking about an issue where a few thousand tons (or even a few hundreds of thousands of tons) is going to make that big a difference. Setting aside all other sources and just going after the “big two,” coal and oil, is even easier to estimate.

As for the burden of proof, cry foul on “argument from authority” if you want to, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people who actually study this subject for a living feel that the burden of proof has more than been met. And over the last decade, that consensus has grown rather than shrunk, meaning that ever more climatologists and scientists are coming around. Further, among those few who dissent, there are a disproportionate number with obvious conflicts of interest that call into question their motivations. Far more so among the opposition than among those who agree with the consensus view — I’d argue orders of magnitude more. (Why appeal to the experts? One can’t be an expert in everything; at some point, you trust the experts, or you don’t — if you don’t, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have a good reason for not trusting them.)

At the end of the day, though, it’s clear that there’s not going to be anything I can do to convince you. You really need to take it up with the climatologists if you want a more detailed explanation (which, perplexingly, you don’t seem to: you seem to want a simple explanation to this complex problem, yet you also seem to want that simplified explanation to be bulletproof). It’s a complicated problem, after all, and if they can’t distill it into a simple back-of-the-envelope equation that makes you say “Aha!” then I’d venture to say that’s a little bit more your problem than it is theirs. 😉

The best quasi-layman’s explanation of why CO2 is the primary factor in current radiative forcings is here, which I’ve also linked above. Based on this thread, I seriously doubt you’ll find it compelling, but it’s at least a jumping off point. (I say “quasi-layman” because there are parts of it I, a layman, don’t quite follow.)

Finally, I don’t necessarily think we’ve dug ourselves into an inescapable hole; I do think, however, that we’ve probably hit a point where atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already too high. So the target needs to be getting to a point where those concentrations need to start coming back down. So even if your premise is correct, and adding more CO2 makes things only marginally or negligibly worse, it’s too high already, and adding more amounts to going the wrong way.

But again, trying to at least have some areas of agreement, let me throw it back in your court. Start from the premise that the planet is warming, and that the results of that will be very bad for humanity. What do you propose we do?
.-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Smart Phone Bleg =-.

This stupid semester refuses to end and as such I’ve been buried under a mountain of crap. I promise I will attempt to make time enough to respond to you tonight and if not then at some point this weekend.

I live deep behind enemy lines in the bluest of blue states. It sucks at times but it does provide ample opportunities for “I told you so,”s when liberal social programs fail, and the ocean is kinda pretty, too.

Some libertarians are insane; I’m not an anarcho-capitalist or anything. It’s a very nice romantic ideal but if the generation of classical liberals that founded this nation couldn’t hold it together under the Articles of Confederation then I have even less faith of that working now.

I laughed a little at your last post as it may have been the first time in the history of people talking to each other that a liberal criticized a libertarian for positing a new technology will ride to the rescue to save us from fossil fuels. To answer your question, I can’t honestly speculate on when alternatives will catch up. I’ve been told by people who work on such things that the efficiency of solar cells doubles every couple years while their cost drops by about a half. That’s significant.

The RealClimate link is actually the most compelling case I’ve seen to date and I want to read a few of the papers referenced therein. I remain unconvinced but their evidence deserves a fair hearing. I won’t have access to those papers until the library reopens on Monday but they’ll be on my reading list.

The answer to your last question depends on the information in the papers I’ll be reading next week. I can’t do it justice until then.

I’m gonna chime in here with my two cents, somewhat piggybacking on Judd’s comment above.
It’s both efficiency and cost with solar. The current Si-based solar panels work fabulously, but they’re not built to last forever, and the total cost of purchasing the panels and repairing them is currently more than coal or fossil fuel derived energy, or whatever else is being served up on the grid. The state of the solar industry is that they’re working several angles: making the current technology more rugged and cheaper to produce, and trying to come up with other rugged and inexpensive solar tech. But as time marches, the cost of plugging into the grid is going to rise, and eventually it will be cost more than whatever the solar industry has in production at that point. I don’t know when that crossover will happen, but I’d guess it would be measured in decades. Perhaps one or two decades.

Fuel cells face the issue of catalyst cost and scarcity. Those two factors alone makes scaling up production of H-fuel cells to serve everyday energy needs impossible at this point. Alternative catalysts are still going to be expensive, just less expensive than Pt because the materials that we’re working with are less rare, but still somewhat precious, so that brings up the other issue: catalyst recycling. Catalysts get poisoned and must be reconstituted from time to time as well. I really don’t know when we’ll solve the “platinum problem”; all I can say is we’re working on it (literally – I’m working on it).

I could still give less of damn about warming, and that’s because I don’t think that is what will get us first, and I believe strongly that confronting our energy needs and finding better sources of energy is really what we need to be about. Besides, the problem which underlies warming and energy is the same: the energy sources we’re currently using are not ideal, and we won’t be able to continue doing things the way we’re doing for much longer. When we solve the energy crisis and move on to renewable resources, the things that the AGW-shouters want to have happen will happen.
.-= Shoothouse Barbie´s last blog ..2009: another year in which god took a gigantic dump on the Phillipines =-.

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.